1951-05-28

Mr. J. H. Rooney (Si. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. May I congratulate you, sir, and the members of the parliamentary committee upon the prompt action that has been taken in rescinding the increase in the price of tea and coffee and allowing it to remain at five cents. The numerous letters and phone calls I have received prompt me to take this action. I speak, too, on behalf of those hundreds who would like to shake your hand and to say, "Sir, we thank you."



QUESTIONS


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	What is the total sum of money the government has paid to date in developing the F-86 Sabre and the CF-100 Canuck aircraft?
2.	How many of each model have been produced in Canada as at April 1, 1951?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	To March 31, 1951
F-86 Sabre
Licence fee and royalties ..	$	507,500.00
Engineering and development 456,890.00
$	964,390.00
CF-100 Canuck
Air frame	 $ 6,834,946.12
Orenda jet engine	 21,467,686.17

2.	It is not in the public interest to disclose the delivery schedules.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Is parking space at T.C.A. airports leased to private operators who are permitted to charge a parking fee?
2.	If so, what fee or charge?
3.	Are uniform fees charged at all airports?
4.	Are airport employees granted free parking space?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1, 2 and 3. There are no Trans-Canada Air Lines airports. All airports at which Trans-Canada Air Lines make regular scheduled landings are operated by the Department of Transport, the Department of National Defence or municipalities.
It is presumed that the reference is to airports at which Trans-Canada Air Lines make regular scheduled stops.
Toronto, Ontario, (Malton) airport, is the only airport operated by this department at which there is, at present, an arrangement with a private operator for the operation of a car parking area.
Public tenders were called and eight applications received, that of Downtown Garages being the highest was accepted and a formal lease is being prepared. The terms are a basic rental of $4,800 per annum, payable $400 per month, plus 35 per cent of the gross revenue per month.
No stipulation is made as to what fees are to be charged by the operator. The charge at Toronto, at present, is 25 cents for eight hours.
4.	Airport employees are granted free parking space.



WOOD ISLAND, P.E.I.  CARIBOU, N.S. FERRY SERVICE

Mr. McLure:: 1.	Was an application made to the government by the Northumberland Ferries Limited for assistance to provide new equipment to meet the demands for greater ferry service between Wood Island, Prince Edward Island, and Caribou, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	What action, if any, has been taken on this request?
4.	Has any decision been arrived at and if so, of what nature?
5.	Who has the authority in Canada for decisions on such applications?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Yes. An application was made to the Canadian maritime commission by the Northumberland Ferries Limited for an additional subsidy to purchase a new vessel for service between Wood Island and Caribou.
2.	April 5, 1951.
3.	Application has been investigated and considered and the applicant has been informed that it is not considered advisable to undertake the construction of a new ferry vessel at this time.

Questions
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Under the Canadian Maritime Commission Act, the commission is charged with the responsibility of recommending the payment of subsidies.



UNITED NATIONS-CANADIAN REPRESENTATION- MEMBERS OF OPPOSITION

Mr. Cruickshank:: 1.	When opposition members of parliament are selected as delegates to the United Nations, who selects them?
2.	What duties and responsibilities have they as delegates at the United Nations?
3.	Do they serve on committees? If so, have they voice and vote?
4.	Have opposition members of parliament the right to initiate discussions and formulate policy?
5.	Are they obliged to make any kind of report to the government when they return from a United Nations meeting?
6.	What remuneration do they receive by way of (a) per diem allowance; (b) living allowance; (c) transportation Allowance?


Mr. Lesage:: 1. The government. At the time of the San Francisco conference it was decided that the Canadian delegation should be selected on an all-party basis. Accordingly, opposition members of parliament were appointed by the government, with the approval of the party leaders concerned, to serve in the capacity of delegates to the conference. In August, 1947, prior to the second session of the general assembly of the United Nations, the practice of designating opposition members as "delegates" was discontinued on the ground that it was unfair to place members of opposition parties in a position where they would appear to be acting as spokesmen for the government. From that time opposition members appointed to Canadian delegations have been designated as "parliamentary advisers" and have thus been absolved of any appearance of responsibility for the formulation or expression of Canadian policy. In accordance with this arrangement opposition members of parliament, selected by agreement with the party leaders concerned, have served as parliamentary advisers to the Canadian delegations to the second and fifth sessions of the general assembly in 1947 and 1950 respectively.
2.	Their function is to observe the proceedings of the general assembly, to attend meetings of the Canadian delegation, and to convey to the chairman of the delegation such views as they may care to express on matters before the assembly.
3.	They do not serve on committees and thus have no voice or vote.
4.	They have the right to initiate and participate in informal discussions within the

Canadian delegation, but the responsibility for the formulation of policy rests with the government.
5.	No.
6.	(a) Nil; (b) normal actual and reasonable hotel expenses, including meals; (c) first-class transportation to and from site of conference.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


PENSIONS


Mr. McGregor:: 1.	Since 1945, how many appeals have been made to the Canadian pension commission for revision of pensions?
2.	Of these, how many have been granted?
3.	How many pensions were raised?
4.	How many pensions were lowered?
5.	Were any pensions raised without appeal? If so, how many?
6.	Were Any pensions lowered' without appeal? If so, how many?



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government notices of motion-The Minister of National Defence-the following proposed resolution; "That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of death or disability to certain persons performing any function in relation to the Canadian forces, the defence research board or any forces co-operating with either, and to make amendments to the statute laws of Canada in connection with the Canadian forces, particularly those consequential on the enactment of the National Defence Act."
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to have this government notice of motion dropped, because the subject matter thereof is contained in the next government motion which appears on page 8 of today's routine proceedings.
Notice of motion withdrawn.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of the death or disability of persons employed in or with the public service of Canada while performing functions in relation to the Canadian forces, the defence

research board or forces co-operating therewith, to amend the Defence Services Pension Act to permit the payment of a pension to an officer or man who has served in the Canadian forces for twenty years or more and to provide that the act shall continue to apply to a man who, having been promoted from the ranks, is granted a short service commission, to amend the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act to provide for the attendance of civilian witnesses at American courts martial held in Canada and to amend other statutes to make their terminology consistent with that of the National Defence Act,
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act for the following purposes:
To strike out from the act certain parts that no longer apply due to the fact that the time of taking out new contracts of insurance has expired;
To increase the amount of insurance moneys payable under the policy at the time of death of the insured;
To reduce to some extent administration difficulties now found in the act and to bring the act more in line with the Veterans Insurance Act in the matter of beneficiary restrictions and particularly in the manner of changing of beneficiaries and altering mode of apportionment of insurance;
To remove certain restrictions respecting the payment of insurance benefits to the estate of the insured; and
To waive premiums on life contracts when the insured reaches his eighty-fifth birthday.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to repeal the Dominion Lands Surveys Act and to enact in substitution thereof the Canada Lands Surveys Act, a revision and consolidation of the former. Provision
Inquiries of the Ministry is made in the revised act for increased remuneration for the members of the board of examiners and the secretary of the board and for special examiners.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question either to the Minister of National Defence or to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to both of whom I have sent notice of the question. In view of the many representations that have been sent to the government by organizations in northern Saskatchewan and by individual members of parliament, are the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs prepared to consider means of retaining the D.V.A. hospital at Saskatoon?


Hugues Lapointe: 

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Announcements in the press of Saturday indicate that Canada and the other nations of the North Atlantic treaty organization have completed plans for a shipping pool in

Customs Act
the event of war. Could the Minister of Transport give us some statement with regard to these plans?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: While the hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his question, I have not yet had an opportunity of examining the press release to which he has referred. Since the matter is one of some importance concerning security, I think I had better look at the press report and then decide whether or not I should make a statement. If the hon. member will allow the matter to stand on that basis, perhaps I can do that within the next two or three days.



CUSTOMS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 198, to amend the Customs Act-Mr. McCann-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 4-Overpaid duties not returnable after six months.
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue):	I propose to have one of my
colleagues move an amendment which will provide for a new section 125 of the act.
Alphonse Fournier: I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by deleting section 125 as set out therein and substituting therefor the following:
125. (1) Where it is established by a decision of the deputy minister, an order or finding of the tariff board or a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that money, taken to account as duty, was paid under an erroneous construction of the law, no refund shall be made unless a written application therefor is made within six months of the date of payment, and in every other case of overpayment of duty or payment of duty in error, no refund shall be made unless an application therefor is made within two years of the date of payment.
(2)	A written request for the review of a tariff classification, an appeal to the tariff board or the institution of legal proceedings for the recovery of an overpayment of duty or a payment of duty in error shall be deemed to be a written application for the purposes of subsection one.
(3)	Nothing in subsection one or two shall affect or prejudice any refund pursuant to an application pending at the coming into force of this section.


Mr. McCann:: We are moving the amendment in connection with subsection 1, because often there are claims made against the crown for a remission of taxes going back as far as three years. We believe that that right should not be extended when there is a change by reason of a finding of the tariff board, a decision of the minister, or a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. We believe that permission should be fMr. Green.)
given to go back over entries for a period of six months, and if money is coming to people who have paid customs duty by reason of a change, then a remission or refund should be made there.
In other cases where there have been overpayment of duty as the result of an arithmetical error or something of that kind, the applicant shall have the privilege or right to go back for a period of two years in claiming that refund. We can readily understand that, by reason of judgments of the tariff board, there have been cases in which very considerable sums of money have been paid at a rate of duty which was higher because of the classification that the department made than the duty under the classsification made by the tariff board, and that there was money coming to certain people who had been importers. But then there arises the question who gets the benefit of the remission. The importer has likely charged up the original duty in his costs and added his profit to that. The goods have been sold to customers throughout the country, and when he gets a remission, especially if it goes back beyond a period of six months, he is getting a fortuitous gain to which we submit he is not entitled.
As an illustration I should like to mention something that happened fairly recently; it is an example of what occurs under the law as it now stands, and it will help to explain the point I have in mind. An importer took issue with a departmental ruling, and he went to considerable effort and some expense to appeal that decision to the tariff board. The departmental ruling was reversed by the board and the importer then became entitled to a refund. The company filing the claim covered three years' importations, involving a refund of slightly more than $100,000. Immediately following the announcement of the board's decision, twelve other importers, who were in no way parties to the appeal and who had not contested the department's ruling, filed claims also covering three years and varying from less than $100 to as much as $59,000. The total involved was $160,000. One importer claimed a refund of $59,290, a second $34,631.44, and two others $10,955 and $10,825 respectively. It is more than likely that these refunds remained in the hands of the claimants and were not passed on to the actual purchasers who had assumed the tax in their purchase price. Such a wide distribution would in any case be difficult for the importer to effect unless his records had been set up for such an eventuality. Furthermore there would be no obligation on him to do so, as the purchaser would have no legal right to claim any refund or any portion of

the refund made to the importer, unless of course some such clause existed in the terms of sale, which would he most unusual.
As this is a typical example, it will be seen therefore that what actually happens is that a number of importers suddenly and sometimes most unexpectedly find themselves, owing to the separate action of another, with a right to reclaim taxes paid over a period of three years and to obtain a refund, which would be in effect a fortuitous additional profit. We do not collect duties short paid by reason of an error, unless we notify the importer within a month of the time that the error was made. We feel that we should not have to go back beyond six months for remissions to importers in the case of a change in the law, or beyond two years in the event of any error on our part.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Undoubtedly the amendment has eased the very stiff provision of section 4 of the amending bill as it stood, which I think was oppressive. In the first place, two years are now allowed in cases where payments are made by mistake. That of course was obviously necessary, because unless a man is following up his accounts month by month he might not discover the error in time. If by chance he is making his check at the end of the year he might find that the six months period had already elapsed. Subsection 2 of the amendment is also an aid, because it makes clear that a request for tariff classification and so on shall be deemed to be a written application for the purposes of subsection 1. I admit frankly that is an alleviation of the harshness of the original section; nevertheless I submit very earnestly to the minister that the reasons he has given for making this most substantial change from the three years in the original section are inadequate, and I suggest that it is creating an unnecessary hardship. The minister may say that six months is long enough. You might say that six months is long enough for an individual; nevertheless ordinary debts remain collectible within a period of six years. In our ordinary relations the usual limitation is six years. The government cut it down to three years, and now they propose in certain cases to cut it down to six months.
I suggest that the minister has given very inadequate reasons. In the first place I repudiate the idea that this section is being passed in order to prevent sharp practice, or something almost worse than sharp practice, on the part of certain businessmen. That seemed to be the argument. I think one thing we can trust our government to do is to be hard enough on individual citizens. There was a case brought up the other day
Customs Act
by the hon. member for Eglinton where it seemed to me the government department had been unnecessarily hard. Be that as it may, I still submit that to cut in two, namely to three years, the time which ordinary people are allowed in their transactions with each other is going quite far enough. I submit that the cases which the minister has given, if I understood them correctly, do not suggest any loss on the part of the government. Indeed the minister referred rather slightingly to a man exercising a right which had been in existence for more than six months. If it is a right, what is wrong about exercising a right? Nevertheless it almost seemed as if the minister were asking us to take the view that of course no reasonable man would think that anyone should exercise a right after the six months period had elapsed.
I understand that the present period was itself a reduction from a longer period. I do not know how long ago that was. But I am told that the original period used to be even longer than three years, that it was six or seven years. If I am wrong the minister will correct me. At any rate, that is as it may be; I am basing my argument on the three years. I am suggesting to the minister that nothing he has said shows that the public interest is suffering; therefore there is no need for this change, and I still hope that the minister may be prepared to withdraw the section.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, when I read the amendment first proposed I thought it was pretty harsh. The amendment introduced this afternoon certainly makes it much better than what was contained in the bill as originally introduced. Still I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Greenwood to this extent, that the reduction from three years to six months in the one case is very substantial, and it seems to me that "erroneous construction of the law" would mean that it was really an error on the part of the department itself. I believe a period longer than six months should be allowed within which the importer should be permitted to make an application. I am wondering if the minister would increase that period to one year, leaving the two years in the other case. I believe that would be much more satisfactory; for it seems to me six months is pretty harsh. I imagine that in some businesses a mistake of this kind might not be discovered until, perhaps, there was some inquiry into the affairs of the company by accountants.


James Joseph McCann: All	the judgments and
changes are published.


Major James William Coldwell: It refers to a decision of the deputy minister, an order or finding of

Customs Act
the tariff board, or the judgment of a court. So far as a judgment of the court is concerned, I suppose that might be considered conclusive, and even a judgment of the tariff board; but the decision of the deputy minister, in the first instance, means a decision of the officials administering the act, and it seems to me that is a little too much like a judge and jury coming to a decision without giving the other party an adequate chance to make an appeal. So far as a judgment of a court or of the tariff board is concerned, of -course that would be carefully gone into and both sides heard. I am referring to the decision of the deputy minister, and in that particular instance it seems to me the period should be longer.


James Joseph McCann: I hardly think the hon. member for Greenwood is being fair when he says I referred rather slightingly to some of the cases that have -come under this section; however, we will let that pass. There cannot be any injustice done to anyone, because in the great majority of cases the limitation will result in no hardship on the importer, and where any hardship does occur the governor in council may provide just relief by a refund under section 33 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.
As to the decision by the deputy minister, any such decision would be made known to importers throughout the country. The judgment of a court is published; the tariff board is equivalent to a court and -all its judgments are published. So it is not a question of taking advantage of anyone or inflicting a hardship on anyone, but I believe the revenues of the -crown should be protected to the extent that no one should make a fortuitous gain by going back two or three years. In the case I -cited, the customer got no relief, but somebody made a good deal of money.
I do not know that I can -accept the suggestion. of the hon. member for Greenwood that the period be extended to one year. This matter has been given -careful consideration by the cabinet, and the amendment that was decided upon is the amendment now proposed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: One point has occurred to me that I should like to raise; it is a matter of draftsmanship. Subsection 2 says:
A written request for the review of a tariff classification, an appeal to the tariff board or the institution of legal proceedings . . . shall be deemed- to be a written application . . .
That seems to make it perfectly clear that at the worst the importer is bound- to know what is going on, because he will have made an appeal himself. I am troubled -about

subsection 1, however, where it says-, "Where it is established by a decision of the deputy minister". Is it not possible that in- that case there might be a decision to which the importer might not -be a party in- the sense that he was notified of it? And is it not conceivable that in su-ch a -case he would not get effective actual notice of it, and that the six months might slip away before he learned of it?


James Joseph McCann: Usually these matters are not confined to one person. On representations being made by -an importer that he is going to make an appeal, our office usually notifies all other importers in a similar line of business.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That would be an appeal to whom?


James Joseph McCann: An appeal to the minister, or it may be brought before the tariff board. In -this instance if he is making an appeal for remission of customs duties it is probably on the basis that the law has been changed by -the tariff board to the extent that the goods he imported were wrongly classified and should be under another item on which the customs tariff is lower, so that having paid the higher rate he would be entitled to a refund. We say if he makes application for refund within a period of six months he comes within the law and is entitled to a remission.


Mr. Drew:: I realize that, as -the minister has said, this is a decision of the cabinet, and for that reason he -proposes to stand by the amendment now before us. I would point out, however, that the reduction in time in this instance is very substantial. It is not a reduction from three years to two years or to one year; it is a reduction from three years to six months, or only one-sixth the time that was previously given. It does seem to me that if over the years three years was regarded as a satisfactory time, conclusive reasons should be given, before an amendment is adopted which might very easily deprive some company or individual of a substantial sum of money because, acting in perfectly good faith, they did not know they were entitled to it and failed to give notice. The minister has said the cabinet has decided, but after all I assume the cabinet decides on all these bills that are brought before us.
I urge the minister to reconsider his decision, or in any event to give us a positive and clear example by specific reference which would indicate the reason for such a substantial reduction. It may well be that those on -this side of the house discussing this matter cannot give specific cases in which

they think hardship would arise. In the very nature of things that information is not available to them. Before an existing legal right is taken away in this manner we should have much more information than is before us at the present time.


Mr. Fulton:: I should like to supplement one thing that was said with respect to subsection 1. The fact is that many cases are test cases, and frequently people who are contemplating appeals will not themselves initiate those proceedings if they know someone else has taken that action, because they are waiting to see what happens. It is a proper and recognized form of procedure to await the outcome of some other case. Now, the 'likelihood is that proceedings before the tariff board or negotiations with the deputy minister-particularly the proceedings before the tariff board or an appeal to a court- will occupy all the six months before a decision is rendered. This would have the effect of precluding those who were awaiting the outcome of the test case from making any application, because the six months would have run out. The six months runs from the time of payment, not from the time of the decision being rendered. I would strongly urge, therefore, there is good ground for suggesting that the period be not reduced so substantially, that it be not reduced from three years to six months but that the minimum time should be one year.
I should like to take up another point dealing with subsection 3 of the amendment, which reads as follows:
Nothing in subsection one or two shall affect or prejudice any refund pursuant to an application pending at the coming into force of this section.
I can appreciate the purpose of this section, and I agree with it. I wonder, however, whether it is completely clear, since you have now changed the definition of the application, making it necessary for the application to be in writing. Then, in subsection 2 you say what shall be deemed to be a written application. Is it sufficiently clear what is meant by subsection 3, that is whether any form of application will be sufficient to bring it within subsection 3, or whether it must now be an application in the form referred to in subsection 2?


James Joseph McCann: Subsection 3 means that any applications that have been made to date, whether written or verbal, are not ruled out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the point with respect to the suggestion that the waiting period be six months from the date of the decision, or else a year from the date of the payment?
Customs Act


James Joseph McCann: Those cases would be given consideration, and in the event of undue hardship an application can still be made for a remission. Under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, that remission could be made. I may say that in practice it is not the minister or the deputy minister who makes the remissions. They make a recommendation, and the recommendation goes to the treasury board; then the remissions are made by order in council. I submit, therefore, that the interests of all taxpayers and citizens who are importers are amply protected by the present provision.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But treasury board could not give effect to a recommendation from the minister if the statute contained the six months' limitation. Surely the treasury board could not take compassion upon someone and give him a refund if more than six months had elapsed before he made his application. I am not clear on that, but my first impression would be that even treasury board could not override a statute.


James Joseph McCann: If it were a case of undue hardship-I am not saying they could override the statute-a remission could still be made.


Mr. Haiiield:: I want to give an example of a situation in which this section would work a hardship. In 1948 a company of mine imported a production machine from the United States. The duty on it was a substantial amount, and there was about $400 sales tax assessed against that machine. In talking about the price of the machine a year afterwards, I recalled an amendment going through this house to the effect that a production machine was free from sales tax. I took up the matter with the authorities, and we secured a refund. If the tariff board make a mistake, does it ever make a refund without an application? If this provision had been in effect at that time, we would never have secured the refund.


James Joseph McCann: The tariff board has nothing to do with refunds. It may direct one, or, by virtue of its decision, may put an importer in the position where he is entitled to a refund.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not wish to cross-examine the minister too closely on a question of law, because I know it is not proper to do that in the committee. As a result of an answer the minister just gave, I am a bit concerned about this matter. As I said a moment ago, I am interested in a test case, and others are perhaps awaiting the outcome of the test case before making an application in the normal way. As I see it, the amendment in its

Customs Act
present form-since most of these cases would take six months to be decided-would preclude those who were awaiting the outcome of that case from making an application for a refund. The minister has said that in case of hardship, on the recommendation of the minister or deputy minister, the treasury board may pass an order in council providing that a refund shall be made. At first sight, that would appear to take care of the type of case to which I have referred. On the other hand I should be quite surprised if, in the face of what will now be a specific provision in the act, the treasury board could in fact have such an order in council passed unless there is a general provision in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. I should like to ask the minister whether there is a section in that act which says that, notwithstanding the provisions of any other act, in cases of hardship the treasury board may pass such an order in council.


James Joseph McCann: There is a general provision of that kind. So far as the matter of notification is concerned, all the party has to do is write a letter to the department and indicate that he proposes to appeal pending the decis-sion of the tariff board.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The more I think about this six months' period, the more it seems to me the possibilities for great unfairness are substantial. We all admit there has to be some limit. We cannot have things outstanding for ever, but this provision would cut the time down to one-sixth. Let us consider what may happen. A man pays his rate, and he is not very well satisfied. The amount involved may not be very large, and after all there are always expenses in connection with making applications. As a matter of fact, he does not make an application. Other applications along the same line have been made, and his six months expires on a certain day. The day after the six months have expired, a ruling is made which makes it quite clear that if it had been made two days earlier he would have been entitled to a refund.
If I followed the minister, he had the feeling that that was wrong-I want to be fair in what I am saying. The minister seemed to think it was unjust to the public that other people should come in, if I interpreted him correctly.


James Joseph McCann: I was just describing an incident.	.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Very well, but I shall put my own interpretation on it, and the minister can alter it. It seems to me that to cut this down to six months is
IMr. Fulton.]
very harsh and oppressive. Six months sounds like a long time, but we all know that in business it can be a short time. Various things may happen and it may be difficult to reach a decision, particularly perhaps if the amounts involved are small, or perhaps if they are large. I suggest that the very greatest kind of hardship can arise if I have described the situation correctly. Here is a man who is in doubt. He lets the six months period elapse, and the very next day it turns out that he did have a right which is now established by the action of somebody else. I take it that the minister will say:	Why
should he profit by the action of somebody else? I think he should profit by being entitled to have his rights, according to what the law is now determined to be.
I now come back to the question of what is reasonable. I do not suggest that it should be ten years or twenty years. We all know that there must come a time when things are finished. But I suggest that three years was not an excessive time, and I suggest that one-sixth of three years is a very short and unfair time.
May I just say this also. I tried to listen carefully to what the minister said, and I did not observe any suggestion of any kind that there was any loss or hardship being suffered by the government. It did not seem to me that the minister made any case for this proposal. The more I think . about it, the more it seems to me to be harsh, oppressive and unnecessary.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, just let us
compare the two procedures. If we find that there has been an error in the matter of paying customs duty, we go back not more than a month and attempt to collect where there was an error; it may be an error in computation, or it may be an error in classification. We go back a month. We allow the importer to go back six times that amount. We allow him to go back six months; and if he makes a written application within that time, his case for remission will be considered. If you are going into multiplication tables, one is six times the other; and the six months that we propose now, in comparison with the former length of time of three years, is just the same thing, namely six times.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister will not wring any tears out of me by that sad story. In the first place, I am not commenting on the decision to make it a month, whether it should be that long or shorter. I am not commenting at all on that matter. All I am saying is that the minister and the department have a purse which is

limited only by the pockets of the people of Canada, whereas to the subject, to the man who is at the other end of the line, this may be a matter of vast importance. The department has thousands and thousands of cases, and they average out. The government, I presume and hope, have made a wise decision in adopting the month's limit, but that does not seem to me to have any bearing on this matter at all. It is a question of what is fair between the crown and the subject, to use those old-fashioned words. I again suggest that cutting this period down to six months is harsh, unnecessary and-I had a third word.


James Joseph McCann: I know of no instance in which it has ever been passed on to the consumer. It is a gratuitous gain for the importer. He has added it on to his costs. Probably he has disposed of the goods in that length of time; when he makes an appeal he gets the money by reason of the change and in no instance that I know of has that money ever been passed on to the ultimate user of the imported article.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have two comments to make on that, with great respect. First of all, that is none of the minister's business. He is not the keeper of the consciences of the importers; I hope their consciences are good. Nevertheless that has nothing to do with the legislation, and the fact that the minister introduces it convinces me more strongly than ever that this has been decided on an unsound basis. It is irrelevant.
The second thing is this. The minister says: I know of no cases. To me that is not very effective evidence at all. I am sorry he said it, because it implies that there are no cases. He does not know, and he cannot know. But I repeat that as a reason for cutting down this three years it is utterly irrelevant and, what is worse than that, it is improper.


Mr. Gibson:: I am just wondering about this amendment. I will be specific with the minister. As he knows, we are having a little bit of difficulty out in British Columbia on this interpretation of tariff item 411a as applicable to logging trucks. I am wondering if this six months period will be sufficient, by the time the matter has been taken to the tariff board and a decision has been arrived at. For instance, if you collect higher duties on tires and on some logging trucks for a period longer than six months before we actually get a decision from the tariff board- I understand the case will be up on June 12- I am wondering if six months will take it back; I do not believe it will. I think there
Customs Act
will be some proper claim that will go back a great deal longer than six months.


James Joseph McCann: The matter to which my hon. friend refers is now before the tariff board and will be heard. It was not initiated by the importers; it was initiated by the department.


John Lambert Gibson: Yes, of course, by the department. We were going along very well out there on the interpretation that the department originally put on it. Then, I suppose unquestionably because of abuses by some section of the industry-I can appreciate the position of the minister and the department- we suddenly find that the interpretation has been changed and they now charge duty under a different item. I am wondering if a six months period is sufficient for us if the tariff board, for instance, rules that the present decision of the Department of National Revenue is wrong. If the tariff board rules in that way, will this six months give us a chance to collect moneys that have been paid?


James Joseph McCann: I think subsection 3 covers that. It says:
(3) Nothing in subsection one or two shall affect or prejudice any refund pursuant to an application pending at the coming into force of this section.
If the importers in that instance would notify the department that, pending the decision of the tariff board, they proposed to give notice or to make application for remission should there be a change, that will be sufficient to protect them.


John Lambert Gibson: Yes; but he would have to do that on his own initiative.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


John Lambert Gibson: I am quite certain that there are some small loggers out in British Columbia who may have bought trucks under this provision and who, if a new schedule is determined by your department, will say: Well, I guess we got hooked for it. They do not read the papers closely. I am concerned about this question whether, if they have paid the higher duties, the six months period will be sufficient.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The minister is quite right
when he says that all importers are informed about tariff hearings. Suppose the tariff board brings out a case where another importer has1 paid too much duty and the goods in question had been imported a year before; what happens in that case?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what I am complaining about.


James Joseph McCann: He would not get the refund.

Customs Act


Heber Harold Hatfield: The man who made the appeal would get it. Why should not the fellow also get it who had made importations previously?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Because the six months have gone.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The six months have gone, yes. But that is not fair.


The Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Another thing the minister said was that if they collect less duty than they are required to collect according to the regulations, they do not go back any further than one month. I know of a case in which they went back two years.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment
carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, let me explain that. The hon, member says we go back two years. That has been in the case of fraud.


Heber Harold Hatfield: No, it was not a case of fraud.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to point out to the minister that he still has not answered my two questions. He has not given me any satisfaction with regard to my question whether the public is suffering any real loss or hardship. The other thing I want to point out is that he has not answered my suggestion which I will put in this way. In a way we are here under a misapprehension. This is not an act to amend the Customs Act. It is an act for the punishment of the Canadian importer. That is practically what the minister said. He suggests that he does not know of cases in which the importer has turned back the money. Indeed, he was generous enough to say that in certain cases it might be difficult for him to do so. Nevertheless the minister gives as a reason for this proposal the strangest reason I have ever heard given in connection with the Customs Act, namely, that some people were making improper profits. He is going to condone them so long as they are made within six months, but he feels that those over six months have some special delinquency attached to them. I still maintain that this is being put forward on an unsound basis, and that the basis of six months is unfair.


John Lambert Gibson: There must be some difference between capital and consumer goods. I can understand that a tank car of vegetable oil

would be considered as consumer goods. But anyone who paid $20,000 or $30,000 for a logging truck would have a long memory in the matter, and would know that he paid 10 per cent, 12J per cent or 17 per cent as the case may be.


James Joseph McCann: In capital goods, where
there would be a hardship they would be taken care of by way of application for remission under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I have heard the minister's explanation, but I should like to know the actual reason for reducing the period of three years down to six months. Is it to benefit the department at the expense of the individual, or what is the real or primary purpose? What harm was done when the period was three years, when there was an erroneous construction of the law and payment was made as a consequence of that erroneous construction? What possible harm could there be in continuing the period of three years?


James Joseph McCann: My answer is that there is a loss of revenue to all the people of Canada in favour of a return of revenue to a few who have been in that position. In order to promote good business methods, I do not think it is proper that we should have to go back over a period of three years. I do not know of any private concern or insurance company that would go back that far.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is six
years.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I want to take up a word the minister has just used. The reason he gives now is somewhat different. He says now that there is a loss to the people of Canada and a gain to some Canadian citizens. But apparently there is no suggestion in his mind that this money which presumably will be recovered is money to which they have a right. Apparently we are asked to pass a measure so that the people of Canada as a whole may be able-to oppress those who otherwise would have a right. As I said a moment ago, we do not suggest it should be ten or twenty or fifty years, but we do suggest that three years is a short time. When we owe debts to each other they are not outlawed for six years, yet we are asked to outlaw this in six months. I say that three years was a more reasonable figure-you were much more reasonable in 1927 than now.


George Alexander Drew: It seems to me that the nub of the argument made by the minister in favour

of the amendment is that someone, or some people as a result of their business practice, might benefit by the fact that they would recover money which they would not pass on to someone else. There does not seem to be any other reason-because surely the government cannot complain if it is called upon to pay back what has been improperly charged.
Nothing can be payable, under the existing requirement which limits the time within which it will be paid to three years, unless there is in fact something owing as the result of a charge having been improperly made. An amendment to the Customs Act should not simply be something to relieve the government from its own mistakes, and this is what this amounts to, as it is put before us today.
While I am not suggesting that we continue this argument to the extent that the argument was continued in regard to relief of another kind to which reference was made in the house recently, I urge that we should not accept too lightly the contention that, merely because something may be done which would give to certain people a benefit they had not expected, we should deny anyone his legal rights within a sensible or reasonable time.
The minister has said that no ordinary or private business would be called upon to make a payment of this kind. The statute of limitations makes the individual liable for a period of six years. The three years now in this act is half of the period applying to a private individual; and I submit nothing has been put before the committee to show why it should be reduced to one-sixth of that time simply because of a speculative possibility that someone may gain some benefit that he would not pass on to someone else.
There is another point which comes before us at the moment, one which should not be forgotten. No doubt the minister heard what was said in the house a few days ago in another matter, upon which occasion a very clear statement was made that an amendment to an act would not have the effect of denying any legal right to anyone. It was explained to us in some detail that some legal rights had been in fact denied. The answer by the government was to the effect that it was quite possible for the opposition to have known that the effect of the bill then under consideration would be to deny such rights, in spite of the assurance that was given. I understand clearly the argument that is put forward now, but in view of the fact that reference was made in some detail only a few days ago to another case in which an amendment became operative in a way which was not fully disclosed at the time,
Customs Act
we should be assured on this occasion that there is no case within the knowledge of the government at the moment in which legal rights would be denied because of this suggested change.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The minister's argument so far has referred to goods imported for resale. What about capital goods?


James Joseph McCann: I answered that.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Does it affect capital goods?


James Joseph McCann: I answered that in reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Where a hardship or injustice might result in connection with capital goods, an application would be accepted.


Heber Harold Hatfield: But the measure does not say so.


John George Diefenbaker: Suppose at this date a case comes within the provisions of section 125 as now constituted. A person has a right within a period of three years to make application for refund. In effect, does not this amendment deny the existing right?


James Joseph McCann: No.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to see anything indicating that it does not. For, unless there is something to the contrary, it applies to all cases after this date. It applies to all who are in the position of having a right to apply for refund. In order to remove all doubt in this connection, and to show that the government is not intending to penalize some who at the present time have rights, it should be clearly stated that in no way is it to be applicable to cases now in existence.
As a matter of fact I doubt whether anyone could raise a dissent. Let us suppose there is a person who today is in the position of being within the three-year period. Then the amendment comes into effect in the suggested form. Is it substantive law or is it procedural?


James Joseph McCann: If application has already been made it would come within the law as it stood.


John George Diefenbaker: But if application had not been made, what happens then? They are still within the period of two and one-half years. Under the law as it is constituted today they are in position where they can make application, but this amendment will have the effect of depriving them of rights which they have had for the past two and a half years.


James Joseph McCann: It would terminate their rights.

Customs Act


John George Diefenbaker: That being so, this would appear to be a most dangerous piece of legislation because it in effect takes away rights that individuals have at this date which are constituted rights and which entitle them to a refund. If there is to be a change in the period from three years to six months it should not cover those who today are within the three-year period under the law as it is now constituted. Otherwise it would be a confiscation of the rights of individuals affected thereby. That is going a long way. As I see it, such a section should not be passed by parliament. If there are reasons other than those already given for so abruptly changing the period from three years to six months, they should be stated.
I suggest to the minister that there be an additional subsection in section 125, or in some similar section, to the effect that these changes do not apply to any rights at present accrued, whether or not notice thereof has been given. As a matter of fact this section could easily be got around by a person giving notice, whether he believes he is entitled to pay the duty or not. By making application for a refund, that would be the end of it. The result would be a lot more work because you would have applications from everybody. At the time they paid the duty, whether they believed they were liable or not, they would simply notify you on the chance that some day they might have an opportunity of getting a refund. They would simply give you notice at the time they made the payment. Would the minister not agree to that amendment? As he says, this amendment is necessary administratively, but I suggest that it should not interfere in any way with the rights of persons as of this date under the original section 125.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Whether we are right or wrong, I think the minister will admit that we are in earnest about this matter. The minister has introduced an amendment to remedy what I think we all realize was most oppressive. Will he not let this section stand? Serious suggestions have been made and I would hope the minister would be prepared to let the section stand so that he can take another look at it. I think he realizes that the arguments we have raised are not trivial and I suggest that it might be allowed to stand.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The minister has admitted that it is a hardship on the importer of capital goods. Would he be willing to change the amendment so that applications with respect to capital goods could still be made in the three-year period?


James Joseph McCann: I do not think that I have admitted it is a hardship. In the case of hardship, consideration would be given. Capital goods could be imported and offered for resale in a short time.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Why not change the amendment? Will the amendment have an effect on drawbacks?


James Joseph McCann: No.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What is the period allowed for drawbacks?


James Joseph McCann: I am informed it is two years.


Heber Harold Hatfield: It would have an effect on drawbacks.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment
carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am still waiting for an answer from the minister.


James Joseph McCann: We propose to allow the amendment to stand as indicated.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment
carry?


Mr. McLure:: It seems to me that this amendment is brought in just to benefit the department. How much money does the department expect will be saved by changing the period from three years to six months? There is going to be a loss to the importer. How much loss is there going to be and how much does the department expect to make out of this drastic amendment?


James Joseph McCann: There is no way of estimating the amount.


George Alexander Drew: We are being asked to pass this bill to reduce a long-standing legal right, in fact to wipe out a long-standing legal right simply on the general statement that it will be of benefit to the department from an administrative point of view and will prevent certain fortuitous profits. We are now told by the minister that he cannot indicate the measure of saving that will come to the government as a result of this. It seems to me that this is a most improper way of doing it. Having regard to the fact that the minister has already given consideration to this matter and that the amendment does appear to be objected to, I suggest that the section should be allowed to stand, if necessary until later in the day, so that the law officers in consultation with the departmental officials may have a chance to consider the suggestions that have been made.


James Joseph McCann: No one could estimate the revenue that would be involved in a thing like this. No one can estimate the appeals that will be made to the tariff board and what

judgments will be given. It is an absolute impossibility for anybody to know the amount of money that would be involved. I may say that this amendment has been given most serious consideration over a long period of time and has been discussed with competent people in the department and in the government. We feel that to protect the revenue of the crown a period of six months is sufficient in which to give notification that an appeal for remission will be made.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Has it been discussed with any of the large importers of this country? Were they taken into the discussions?


James Joseph McCann: Yes. We have had no objections from importers.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I asked the minister whether they had been taken into consideration. Did you bring them into your discussions in order to get information from them? They certainly would not object if they did not know this was coming up.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says that they have had no objection from importers, but will he say that there have been no objections on behalf of importers? My understanding is that definite representations have been made to the minister.


James Joseph McCann: I think my hon. friend is correct in that. What I meant was that there have been no objections by individuals. We have had some correspondence with the association.


John Lambert Gibson: Why could not the tariff schedule list what items are capital items and what items are consumer items? It could be made relatively simple. Frankly I am appalled at the far-reaching decisions it is possible for the deputy minister to make. I must say that they are always made with great courtesy and in a kindly way by the people in the department. I am appalled as a matter of fact at the extent of the powers they possess and the amount of money that is involved. They make these decisions. You can appeal if you wish but the decision is made, and it becomes a question of being forced to law if you want to change it. Therefore on the whole people usually accept it.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister may be able to help the committee by giving the number of decisions made by the deputy minister since the first of January, 1950, with respect to payments of duty having been made under an erroneous construction of law. How many orders of the tariff board and how many judgments of courts have there been? Those figures would be available. Since the first of January, 1950, how many cases have fallen in the categories covered by the amendment?
Customs Act
I should like, first, decisions of the deputy minister; second, orders of the tariff board; and third, judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction.


James Joseph McCann: I cannot give that answer
offhand. As to the number of cases there have been, in the ordinary course of events there are cases by reason of decisions of the minister, of the tariff board, or judgments of courts. We do not keep a record of the number. I have no record of the number.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, this department must have such records. The minister has not, but his officials are before him. Let me put it this way. Have they got this information? How much has been paid by way of refunds under the old section 125 since the first of January, 1950?


James Joseph McCann: We have that record, but I have not got it with me.


John George Diefenbaker: Both the numbers and the amount would furnish the committee with information, because this has all the appearances of something being hidden.


James Joseph McCann: Refund claims for the fiscal year 1950-51 involving overpayment of customs duties amounted to $7,500,000.


John George Diefenbaker: How many cases did that cover?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: Have the officials not got that?


James Joseph McCann: I will try to have the answer for that when the estimates of the department are being considered.


John George Diefenbaker: No. I do not mind the matter standing until the information is given. In order to arrive at the total the officials must have the number of cases.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall clause 4 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I submit to the minister that the question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre is entirely relevant to what we are considering now.
I think his question goes to the very root of the matter because it gives, us an idea of the amounts involved, and I think $7,500,000 is worth talking about.


Alphonse Fournier: Question.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I have a case right now where I have paid 25 per cent duty on a piece of machinery. I contend the duty is 25 per cent if it is made in Canada. I paid 25 per cent duty on that piece of machinery.

Customs Act
If it is not manufactured in Canada the duty is only 10 per cent. There are hundreds of items in the tariff where if the goods are not manufactured in Canada they carry a 10 per cent duty and if they are manufactured in Canada the duty is 25 per cent. How long is it going to take to prove to the customs department that it is not manufactured in Canada? I do not know how long it is going to take me. I may have to appeal to the tariff board.


Alphonse Fournier: Question.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall clause 4 as amended carry?


John George Diefenbaker: No. Have these officials not got information as to the number of cases in these various categories?


Alphonse Fournier: He told you he did not have the information.


James Joseph McCann: No.


John George Diefenbaker: If they have not got it,
it is a pretty funny thing because the minister says they have been discussing this matter for a long time and-


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: -that this is the product of much thought and consideration. If it is, then certainly the information is available.


James Joseph McCann: We were discussing the
principle involved.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to know
why this change is being made destroying constituted rights.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall clause 4 as amended carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Those in favour of clause 4 as amended carrying?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman, clause 4 is not going to carry yet because I think we must have some reason why we cannot have this relevant information. They could not have decided this matter in a vacuum, and when they had these substantial figures-


An hon. Member:: I am not so sure about that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You may
be right. At any rate they cannot ask us to decide it in a vacuum. The hon. member for Lake Centre has asked for information which is relevant. We have got a figure of $7,500,000. It is very relevant to know whether fifty or five thousand people were involved. I hope it is relevant not merely
[Mr. Hatfield.)
to people who sit on this side of the house.
I think we should have that figure and if we cannot have the information the clause should stand until we get it.


Alphonse Fournier: Question.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall clause 4 as amended carry?


George Alexander Drew: No. Two other questions were asked. 1 must confess that I find it difficult to imagine that, with the long consideration that was given to this matter, no one thought of asking the officials how many cases would be affected. Even if that is so, there are still two other questions. Questions have been asked as to the number of decisions by the tariff board and by courts of competent jurisdiction. May I ask the minister if he knows the number of cases where decisions of that kind were made by the tariff board or by courts of competent jurisdiction?


James Joseph McCann: No, I cannot answer that
question. I do not know the number.


George Alexander Drew: I think an attempt has been
made to keep this argument on a very moderate basis, but it seems that we are not to be given even a summary of the minimum of information that the government must have required before it reached a decision of this kind. Subject only to terms of cabinet secrecy and otherwise, I submit that the house before passing a law of this kind is entitled to a summary of the basic facts which led the government to reach a decision of this kind. I can only say that if the government reached such a decision with as little information as has been disclosed to the house, then every member of the house should be alarmed at the way the government reaches its decisions.


Alphonse Fournier: Question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Public Works is asking for questions. I have a question.


Alphonse Fournier: They are not always
serious.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to know from
the minister why he does not think it would be just and fair and quite workable to follow up the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake Centre with regard to the provision that this amendment will not take away established rights. If the minister does not accept our argument that six months is too short, and he has not accepted it, would he not accept the proposition that people who at the present time have the right to make application up to three years from the date of payment should not have that right taken away from them, that the time might be limited to six months in the future, but that

there should toe a very simple addition to the effect that the amendment will not abridge the right established now to the three years time in the case of those who have already paid? It seems to me that a simple way to put that into words would be that this amendment shall not affect the rights of anyone with respect to claims for refunds of duty already paid before this amendment comes into force. That would limit it clearly to payments made before the amendment comes into force.


George Alexander Drew: Since the minister is not
answering that question, will he give this house the unqualified assurance that the proposed amendment is not designed to avoid the results of any decision of which this house has not yet been informed?


James Joseph McCann: I do not quite understand
that question. Would the hon. member repeat it?


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister give the
members of this committee his unqualified assurance that the purpose of this amendment is not to deny legal rights resulting from any decision of which this house has not yet been informed?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, I can give that assurance, that it was not done designedly for that purpose.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Might it accidentally have
that result?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought the minister was
consulting with his officials to get the material necessary to answer the last question. I took it that he intended to answer it, and I would appreciate it if he would answer the suggestion I made just before the leader of the opposition spoke.


James Joseph McCann: I cannot give the hon. member for Kamloops any assurance to that effect. We do not know what people are considering by way of appeals, and we are not prepared to go back beyond six months from the date of application.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think the minister
understood; I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The government now takes the position that all applications for refund must be made within six. months of the date of payment. While we on this side do not agree, let us accept for the sake of argument that this is going to be the law from now on, and that any claim for refund must be made within six months. Up to the moment this amendment becomes law there is the right to make application for refund within three years from the date of payment. My suggestion is simply that today a man 80709-2204
Customs Act
who paid duty six months ago has another two and a half years within which he may file his application. Instead of taking that right away from somebody in whose favour it exists at the moment, why not by a very simple addition to the amendment provide that this amendment shall not abridge rights now in existence with respect to claims for the refund of duty already paid?


James Joseph McCann: We do not accept that:
position.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was only asking the minister,, so we could see the force of the position, whether he would be kind enough to tell us why the government cannot accept that suggestion, which seems so logical and reasonable.


James Joseph McCann: It would have the effect of
postponing the application of this amendment for a period of three years.


John George Diefenbaker: What the minister has
said simply amounts to this, that in order to* facilitate the administration of this legislation parliament is asked to pass a law that has the effect of confiscating the rights of individuals, and that is a serious thing.


James Joseph McCann: We are not confiscating anybody's rights.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what one calls administrative lawlessness, interference with and destruction of the presently existing rights of the individual. I cannot understand why the minister, who is usually so reasonable about everything, cannot realize how dangerous legislation such as this may be. I have my rights under the law. Those rights are fixed under section 125. Parliament is now asked to say that my rights shall be terminated because some administrative officials do not like the law as it now stands. No reasons are given, no statistics, no information as to the number of cases. We are simply asked to say that rights now in existence are to be wiped out. We do not know whether any people have these rights. We have no information as to the number of decisions of the deputy minister, of courts of law or of the tariff board which might affect the rights of individuals. I suggest that parliament should not be asked to give blanket power to destroy vested and inherent rights now in existence without far more reason than has been given. I would have liked the minister to give the number of cases that might conceivably be affected by this most drastic provision. It is simple; it looks innocuous; in fact it means that parliament is asked to abrogate, abridge and actually destroy existing rights.

Customs Act
I for one am not satisfied to accept that. I ask the minister whether he will not consent to a simple amendment which will provide that this change in the law will not affect constituted rights under the law as of this date.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall section 4 as amended carry?


Mr. Low:: No, Mr. Chairman. I should like to know what the Minister of Justice thinks about this clause. He has been listening to this argument, as I have, and he must have a definite opinion on it. Could we have his views?


Mr. Garson:: I am afraid my views would not be worth a great deal. This is a matter [DOT]of tariff law policy and no legal problem is involved, as I think all lawyers in the committee will agree.


John George Diefenbaker: It is just rights or no rights.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I hesitate to take any part in this discussion, but I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops is most reasonable. I say that because the hon. member for Melfort and I were putting our legal heads together a little while ago and we came to a somewhat similar conclusion. I think what we want to do here is protect the person who had a transaction before this amendment came into effect. I think that would be the idea, going beyond the application itself to a transaction in respect of which an application might be made later. It seems to me the amendment might be made to read something like this: "Nothing In subsection one or two shall affect or prejudice any refund pursuant to ai transaction which took place before this act came into effect." It seems to me that would not be detrimental to the interests of the country and would protect the just claims of persons who might be affected in this way.


James Joseph McCann: I would be prepared to accept an amendment which might meet the objections that have been raised to this section, to the effect that it shall come into effect six months after the passing of the bill. That would be equivalent to giving the importers six months' notice of this change. Perhaps that would be a compromise that would be fairer to the public than what we have at present.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not go too far, but it does give those whose rights would be adversely affected notice that they have a period of six months within which to protect their rights. To me that covers the situation. It gives notice, and it does not

summarily confiscate rights that exist. I believe that is a reasonable suggestion.


James Joseph McCann: My colleague, the Minister of Justice, will move that amendment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I would move: That clause 4 of this bill be amended by adding thereto as subclause (2) the following:
"(2) This section shall come into force six months after this act comes into force."


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall this amendment
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Penalty for practising without a licence.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, section 5 creates an offence if any person attempts to transact business as a custom-house broker. I do not find anywhere a definition of a custom-house broker. Supposing I went down and tried to get an article from the customs department, would I be holding myself out as a custom-house broker?


James Joseph McCann: Any private individual has a right to go to the custom house, claim his own- goods and pay the duty on it. What are known as custom-house brokers are agents who act for importers, and who are licensed by a board set up by the department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there a definition of a custom-house broker, so that it is clear when it is being infringed and when it is not? Supposing I go down, not to get my own goods, but to get goods for the member for Peace River.


Solon Earl Low: And I agree to pay you fifty cents.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We will say twenty-five cents or, since he is a generous man, he may make it fifty cents. All I am asking is, is there a clear definition of what is and what is not a custom-house broker? Let me change my illustration. Suppose I go and do that without a fee, just as a friend, and I get the goods out of customs. Am I contravening this section?


James Joseph McCann: No. If you are acting for a number of firms in that capacity, and are doing it without' a licence, you are breaking the law. If you do it for yourself or for your family, it is all right. But if you made a practice of doing that, and were accepting a fee, then you would be contravening the section.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think that answers the question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 6-Power to conduct inquiry.
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister a few questions concerning section 6. In the explanatory notes mention is made that there is a similar provision in the Excise Act. I realize that there is. Some years ago there was a case under the Excise Act in the province of Saskatchewan where the accused was brought before an inspector of the mounted police, who had been appointed as the investigating official under the Excise Act. The accused refused to answer certain questions that were put to him without being accorded the protection of the courts within the meaning of the Canada Evidence Act. Under this section will a person who is forced to testify against himself under an order made under this section, if it is passed by the house, be allowed his constitutional right of objecting on the ground that his answers may incriminate him and therefore ask for the protection of the court?


James Joseph McCann: He may ask for the protection of the court and get it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the opinion of the law officers in regard to this section?


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: I mention this, because in the case in Saskatchewan to which I referred, Rex v. Hicks, I was counsel for the appellant. In that case a judge of the Court of King's Bench, Mr. Justice Taylor, held that the individual had his constitutional right of refusing to incriminate himself, although not of refusing to answer provided protection was granted. My recollection is that in Nova Scotia within the last two or three years there was a judgment of the late Chief Justice Chisholm to the effect that the individual did not have his constitutional rights under a similar section, and he was not entitled to protection but had to testify. It is for that reason I ask the minister whether or not the law officers of the crown, realizing that there is a judgment of a Saskatchewan superior court to the effect that the constitutional rights are preserved under the Excise Act and there is a judgment of the appeal court of Nova Scotia to the effect that the Hicks case in Saskatchewan was wrongly decided, have concluded that the constitutional rights are preserved under the section in question.
If there is one thing we want to guard against in this country it is bringing into effect the trial of the individual by an administrative court, wherein the individual is actually under the control of the state. It is a dangerous precedent, and it is one that in the neighbouring country in recent years has brought the law into contempt. What I mean is this. The state shall not be placed
Customs Act
in the position where it may deny the individual his rights, however great the interest of the state may be for denying the citizen his constitutional freedom. It is for that reason I ask the minister this question. If we in this country want to preserve our British system, we must prevent administrative officials from securing powers to interrogate an individual, and place that individual in a position where he must become a witness against himself.


James Joseph McCann: I understand the hon. member's point, and in a discussion with the law officers I am given the information that the rights of the witness are protected.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before this section carries, I believe some doubt arises under subsection 3, paragraph (c), subparagraph (ii). Will the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Justice tell us whether or not the question of what is a proper question was also considered? It is obvious that under the Inquiries Act a commissioner is limited to the same powers as a civil court, and therefore could not compel a witness to answer against his will but would have to allow him the benefit of section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act. At line 20 of the bill it says that every person who refuses to answer any proper question is guilty of an offence. This would seem to give the person conducting the inquiry, in addition to the powers under the Inquiries Act, the power to determine of his own accord what is a proper question. I wonder if that is not going further than the situation just described by the minister? Was that matter also considered by the law officers, and have they specifically considered whether that is not an enlargement of the powers of cross-examining a witness and compelling him to answer?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To reply to my friend the hon. member for Kamloops, if he examines the Inquiries Act I think he will find that this provision is really an alleviation of the section which would otherwise be relevant, in that this provides for the prosecution of the guilty person.-that is, the person guilty of withholding information-before a court rather than having the person in charge of the inquiry itself impose the fine upon him. In that sense I would think it would be more satisfactory to my hon. friend than the Inquiries Act itself.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think the matter is quite as simple as that. The Minister of Justice will, of course, remember the case in the court of appeal of Nova Scotia, under the Excise Act, just about three or four years ago. In that case, Sir Joseph Chisholm, giving the decision of the court, held that

Customs Act
the Hicks case in the province of Saskatchewan was not good law. In the Hicks case the accused refused, on the advice of counsel, to answer. any questions until protection was granted under section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act. When the accused Hicks refused to testify, prosecution was taken against him under the identical section that appears in the Excise Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Identical with what? My hon. friend suggests "an identical section". Identical with what?


John George Diefenbaker: That is, refusing to
answer any questions put to him by the person conducting the inquiry or investigation. '


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The accused was prosecuted before a police magistrate who dismissed the information. The crown carried it to appeal before a Court of King's Bench judge and that judge, Mr. Justice Taylor, dismissed the appeal and held that the individual had his constitutional rights to refuse to testify unless protection was granted to him. In that case I was counsel for the accused. Then I noticed that the appeal court of Nova Scotia, some two years later, gave a judgment in which it was stated by Sir Joseph Chisholm that no accused had the right to refuse to testify even though protection was not granted. As the minister will admit, the great danger with provisions such as the one in question is that the individual's rights are pared down and the hope of securing justice under our system will be denied. Administrative officials naturally like anything in the nature of change in the laws of evidence which will make more expeditious the proving of a case. This is one of those sections; it reminds me of the suggestion with regard to wire tapping, to which there has been considerable reference in the press during recent weeks. Naturally the crown officials would welcome the opportunity to tap telephone wires and telegraph wires. But I hope that, as long as the Minister of Justice is in the position he now occupies, this type of invasion of the constitutional rights of the individual will not be allowed.
I would not have withdrawn my objection to this section, as I did a few moments ago, by acquiescence, had it not been for the fact that the minister, following consultation with the law officers of the crown, gave it as his opinion that no person will be denied, under this section, the right to rely upon his constitutional right, non-incrimination. It is too bad that one of these cases was not carried to the Supreme Court of Canada
fMr. Diefenbaker.]
because, as the position of affairs now is, the Court of King's Bench has decided one way in the province of Saskatchewan and the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia has decided the direct opposite in a similar case. I welcome the reply given by the minister that this section will not be another in this gradual invasion of the rights of the individual; because if there is one thing we need to do for the preservation of our democracy it is in this country to ensure that the rights of the individual shall not be abrogated or suspended at the caprice of the crown.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not clear, Mr. Chairman, just why it is necessary to repeal the original section and to re-enact this one. I do not claim to be familiar with the Inquiries Act. I certainly have not the intimate knowledge of these matters possessed by the hon. member for Lake Centre. But at first sight it would appear that the Inquiries Act confers upon the commissioner power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to allow payment of expenses and so on. In the first place, why is it the desire to say that any person designated by the minister may conduct any inquiry and shall have the powers and authority of a commissioner appointed under part I of the Inquiries Act, which would seem to give him ample powers, and then go on, in an apparent attempt to revise the powers that he has, to provide that every person who refuses to answer any proper question put to him shall be liable to punishment on summary conviction?
That is the first question. Why is it necessary to do that? My concern about this matter arises out of this supposition. The person before whom the inquiry is being conducted seems to me to be given, by that provision in line twenty, the power to decide what is a proper question, over and above the power he would have under the Inquiries Act; simply by refusing the protection of the Canada Evidence Act and yet holding that this is a proper question, he exposes the witness to prosecution and punishment on summary conviction. I doubt if the witness would have any recourse. If the commissioner said: "This is a proper question and it is not one where you are entitled to the protection of the Canada Evidence Act," then the witness must answer or his refusal to answer, it seems to me, is automatically bound to be followed by fine under the summary convictions act. So I wonder why it was necessary to put that provision in, when the Inquiries Act would seem to give the necessary powers already?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if my hon. friend would not agree that, other things being equal, it is better not to legislate by reference.	If we have a provision such
as this which appears in the bill before us, for the bringing of a person before the proper officials to be interrogated, and it is desired to provide certain penalties for his not answering questions, it is surely desirable to have the whole law relating to that point stated in the Customs Act itself, so that the people concerned and the solicitors who are dealing with the matter can, by reference to the Customs Act itself, discover what the rights of the client are and how they are to be disposed of. On that ground alone, a great deal can be said for this provision.
If my hon. friend will, as I see he has started to do, take the provision which is in the bill before us and compare it with section 10 of the Inquiries Act, I think he will see that the provisions are fairly similar. I have not compared it carefully but I would have thought, reading it casually, that it is almost identical language, and the penalties are the same.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are very similar.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think it could be maintained that there has been any greater penalty irruposed upon anyone guilty of not answering these questions. I believe the hon. member would agree with me that it is always desirable to have all provisions relating to customs matters, for instance, contained in the Customs Act itself. It should not be left to people who are dealing with it, people who sometimes may not be lawyers, to read the act only to discover that when they want to deal with the law they have to run it down in some other act which they may not have at hand. Then there is the additional point that this section almost matches a similar section in the Excise Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the minister for his answer. We can. take it that the opinion of the law officers is that there is no enlargement of the powers already given in the Inquiries Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: But if that is so I must confess I find it difficult to understand why we should be asked to pass this amendment at all. The minister has suggested-and I do not think he has gone beyond suggesting-that it is more convenient to have these powers contained in the Customs Act itself, rather than to make it necessary for a layman, or someone else who is not in a position carefully to examine the effect of the law, to determine what his rights may be.
Customs Act
I would point out however that the section as it will stand will still refer to the Inquiries Act, because these are the words used:
-and any person so authorized has all the powers and authority of a commissioner appointed under part I of the Inquiries Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: It is obvious that anyone who wishes to ascertain the powers of a person appointed in this manner must of necessity go to the Inquiries Act to find out what those powers are. If it is necessary to go to that act to find out the powers of the person appointed, why is it more difficult for him to ascertain from the Inquiries Act exactly what the obligations are, as well?
The minister says the provisions are similar. I suggest it is unwise to depart from the exact wording that has been interpreted by judgments of the courts, unless there is some very special reason for departing from that exact wording and introducing the new words into a section of another act. If there is going to be any part of the Inquiries Act which must be interpreted either by a layman or by a lawyer to ascertain the rights of an individual, then I suggest we might as well leave it the way it is, and have both the obligations as well as the rights of the individual determined by reference to the Inquiries Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I must confess there is a good deal of point in what the hon. member says. However, I think no great problem is posed here, because it is much simpler to say in the present bill that the persons conducting an inquiry under it shall have the powers of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act. This avoids repeating quite a long list of sections in the present bill. But when it gets down to specifying for those who might be disposed to disregard these provisions what the penalty should be, then I think there is nothing contrary to good practice when we indicate in the Customs Act just what those penalties are. They cannot be stated in clearer or fairer terms. He who runs may read:
Every person who (a) fails, without valid excuse, to attend an inquiry or investigation as required under this section,
(b)	fails to produce any document, book or paper in his possession or under his control, as required under this section, or
(c)	at any inquiry or investigation under this section
(i)	refuses to be sworn or to affirm, or to declare, as the case may be, or
(ii)	refuses to answer any proper question put to him by the person conducting the inquiry or investigation,
is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding four hundred dollars and not less than twenty dollars.

Customs Act
That is, a gentleman who is conducting an inquiry cannot proceed to penalize summarily. The person affected must be taken before a proper judicial official who has jurisdiction on summary conviction. Then the person affected can see, by reference to the legislation, he is exposed to a penalty not exceeding the amount specified.
Admitting the force of the argument by the leader of the opposition, I do not see how very great exception can be taken to the provision because it is spelled out here in a manner which I suggest is desirable. These penalties Should be in the Customs Act, rather than in some other act to which a person reading the Customs Act would have to refer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: A moment ago the minister said that it was better not to legislate by reference.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought I understood that. Yet, are we not forced in this instance to construe the word "proper"? I suggest that in a sense we are forced to deal with it in relation to something else. We have to drag in some other reference in order to know what is proper and what is not. In other words we would not get the full meaning of the word "proper" by looking in the dictionary. Do we get it by looking back to the Inquiries Act, or do we look elsewhere in the Customs Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; I mean that if this bill were drawn-as it is not-to say that the customs officer conducting the investigation shall have all the powers of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act, including the imposition of penalties and everything else, then someone who, not being a lawyer or legally trained, was reading the act, might not become aware of the penalties being visited upon him under the terms of the Inquiries Act. I suggest it is preferable, if there are to be penalties for non-observance, to have such penalties set out in the act under which a person is being asked questions by customs officers.
In this way a person who had the Customs Act in front of him would know his position exactly, and he is not left to deduce that because customs officers have certain powers under the Inquiries Act he will be exposed to certain penalties under that act for not answering their questions. I think the hon. member for Greenwood would agree that, generally speaking, our laws should be in the form in which they can be best understood not only by lawyers but by laymen.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister said that there would be some abridgement of the

powers given a commissioner under the Inquiries Act because now it would be necessary to lay informations and to proceed by way of summary conviction to enforce a penalty, whereas under the Inquiries Act the commissioner himself could set the penalty. I believe the minister would wish to change the record because, if my reading is correct, the procedure is the same in both instances.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, the hon. member is correct. When at his request I entered the discussion I was not too familiar with the details of this legislation, and spoke from memory of the Inquiries Act. However, I have checked since, and the hon. member is quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Contravention of act in other respects.
John George Diefenbaker: What is the meaning of "attempts to violate"? Possibly with the assistance of the Minister of Justice the minister could give an example of that. I would have thought that the word "attempt" would have been sufficient.


James Joseph McCann: Rather than try to explain it, perhaps I could give an example. A trucker comes along with a load of refrigerators which he is attempting to smuggle into Canada. An arrangement has been made whereby another trucker comes to the crossing point ready to transfer the refrigerators on to his truck and convey them into Canada. That would constitute an attempt to violate. I might say to the hon. gentleman that there have been instances such as the one I have indicated.


John George Diefenbaker: Loopholes like that have to be plugged.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Or by railway, highway or air transport.
George Alexander Drew: In view of the rather far-reaching nature of this section I wonder if the minister could explain in some detail the reasons for this amendment? I would prefer to hear his explanation before I make some comments I wish to make on this section.


James Joseph McCann: This amendment makes it possible to provide sufferance warehouses for the convenience of highway or air transport. The lack of such warehouses has been an obstacle to highway and air transport, as well as creating administrative inconvenience at Canadian customs ports. The amendment

spells out the obligations which up to the present have been stipulated only in the bonds taken from the operators of sufferance warehouses where such persons were authorized to operate such warehouses under regulations and provisions of the act.
The actual practice is to have goods arrive by truck at the frontier point where they are cleared and then trucked to the interior destination. This amendment would permit clearance either at the frontier point or at the interior point and thus relieve the present congestion at the frontier. The present system is to have goods come to border points like Windsor, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls or hundreds of other points, where they have to be unloaded, an appraisal made, the customs duty paid, either by the person in charge of the transport or more likely by a customs broker, and then reloaded on Canadian-owned trucks for delivery to the point of destination.
Under this amendment the motor or air transport companies would themselves institute sufferance warehouses at interior points where the customs officials would supply the facilities for the appraisal of the goods and the collection of the customs. Let it be understood that the warehouses would not be built by the government. They would be licensed and bonded by the government. I submit that this is simply an evolution of transportation which has been taking place over the past few years.
It is true objections have been raised, on behalf of the railroads in particular, that this would mean a loss of business to other carriers. I submit that there would not be any loss. The practice is not to transfer from the truck coming to the border to a railroad for shipment to the point of destination, but to transfer to another truck. Take goods coming to a point like Hamilton, say from Philadelphia. These goods would cross the border at Fort Erie or Niagara Falls and under the present practice would have to be unloaded, appraised, reloaded and then they would go on after the customs duty had been paid. If this amendment goes into effect the officers at the point of entry would place a seal on the truckload of goods which would then go to the warehouse at Hamilton operated by a trucking company or a combination of trucking companies. Our appraisal officers would appraise the goods at the warehouse and collect the duty. As I said, there have been some objections, such as those from the Ship-by-Rail Association of Canada, but I think they can be well answered.
I hope hon. members will not confuse these two phases of trucking in bond as there is S0709-221
Customs Act
only one referred to in this amendment. The other phase was the trucking in bond that took place during the war where a truck would enter Canada, say at Niagara Falls or Fort Erie, cross the southern part of Ontario and leave Canada at Windsor and on to Detroit or whatever point in the United States it was destined for. That was an international arrangement between Canada and the United States that terminated at the end of the war. This second arrangement has to do with the setting up of sufferance warehouses under which the customs department will supply the needed facilities to -carry on the business.
I shall attempt to answer any further questions that are asked, but I think what I have said will serve as an introduction.


George Alexander Drew: It is clear from the explanation given by the minister that the primary intention of the amendment is to provide for the delivery by trucks of goods to sufferance warehouses. It is true that -the amendment includes air transport as well, but there are obvious reasons why it could not apply in the same way to air transport. A -truck could come right through to a sufferance warehouse whereas an aircraft must land at an airport. It is very unlikely that sufferance warehouses of -a size to deal adequately with the kind of distribution contemplated would be constructed at many airports, certainly at this time.
For that reason I think it would be well to direct our minds particularly to the effect of this amendment upon transport by highway. As the minister has pointed out, there is a very -clear distinction between the subject matter of the amendment now before us and the practice -carried on during the war whereby bonded trucks were allowed to pass through Canada from a port of entry to a port of exit. This practice led to certain discussion at that time.


Mr. Lesage:: In transit.


George Alexander Drew: As explained by the minister the effect of this amendment would make it possible for goods to be imported into Canada to be loaded on a truck at -their point of origin, pass the border and then be unloaded at one of the sufferance warehouses, -constructed and operated either by an individual trucker or by a group of truckers. The minister made one very significant statement. He said that under the present regulations it is necessary for the truck to unload at the border and then be reloaded. I noticed that he said that the goods would be reloaded on Canadian trucks-


James Joseph McCann: Or American.

Customs Act


George Alexander Drew: -and brought to their destination.


James Joseph McCann: Or the original truck that
brought them there. They can be reloaded on it.


George Alexander Drew: I noticed the minister said they would be reloaded on Canadian trucks. I am quite prepared to accept the explanation that they might also be loaded on the original trucks.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: The fact is, the course indicated by the minister in his remarks with regard to reloading on Canadian trucks would be the more likely one to follow, because very much larger trucks are being used in the regular transportation of goods of this kind in the United States than in Canada. Some of these trucks run to 50 or 55 tons, and even more. At the present time such trucks could not and should not use some of our highways. In fact many of these trucks would create a very real danger to the bridges on a number of our highways. For that reason the present provision is one that has results which are rather parallel to the results that followed from the action taken in regard to the bonding of goods on trucks in transit from one border point to another, which came up for discussion during the war and immediately afterwards.
At that time objection was taken, as the minister will recall, to the passage of trucks in that way not only by the railway companies but also by certain provincial jurisdictions. The minister will recall that it was pointed out at that time that these very large trucks were damaging our roads to an extent that made it a very real problem to maintain roads for ordinary truck and motor operation. To some extent the same danger would be repeated by any provision which encouraged the entry into Canada of these very large trucks. I would certainly agree with the minister and anyone else who suggests that we should adjust ourselves to changing events and the improvement of transportation methods. The first requirement, however, in dealing with changes in transportation methods is to make sure that our facilities for handling those transportation methods are adequate to the task. I believe that right across Canada we are rapidly improving our general situation with respect to highways.
The fact remains, however, that no matter what general improvement has taken place we have not yet the same network of carefully levelled highways suitable for the very large trucks that are being used in the United States today. Therefore I suggest that is a

reason, apart from some of the other reasons I shall mention, why it would not be wise to make this amendment at this time. The amendment would encourage the movement of such trucks into internal ports in Canada, in many oases over highways which would be seriously damaged by the weight of such trucks moving often in great trains.
Then I come to another aspect of the problem. There is a great difference between bonding a freight car and bonding a truck. A freight or baggage car travels over clearly defined routes. The car having been bonded moves on a railway right of way which is under fairly constant supervision, and which is subject to a measure of observation and checking that would not apply to a truck once it had passed the border. May I say at once that I am not in any way reflecting on the good faith of any of those well established trucking organizations which may believe that this would be a convenience. Nevertheless it must be remembered that our customs officials, expert and courteous though they are, have no crystal glass in which they can gaze to determine whether the people operating a particular truck are going to conform exactly with the regulations or follow a particular course.
It is possible for trucks to depart from a' direct route in a way that is not possible when goods are being moved by railway transportation. Moreover it is possible for trucks to be opened in a way that would be most unlikely in the case of railway transportation.


James Joseph McCann: There is the same type of seal on them as on railway cars.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of National
Revenue is too practical and has too good an understanding of the construction of trucks to be unaware of the possibilities of seals not being effective on trucks where they would be very effective on railway cars. Very little imagination suggests that there are many ways in which it would be possible to avoid the effect of sealing unless one were going to seal a truck with such a bond of wires that it would almost look like a bird cage. In saying that, I repeat that I am not impugning the good faith of any of those who may be applying for concessions of this kind. I suggest, however, that it must be obvious to every hon. member that a truck passing a border point, and having received a seal, would be able to do many things that would not be possible in the case of a railway freight car.
I think it must be obvious to everyone that a very extensive problem of policing and supervision is involved, which would mean the requirement of a very much larger number of men than are now employed for tasks

of this kind, in order to be reasonably sure that there was no infringement of regulations of this nature.
Then there is another problem, of course, not related to the question of the good faith of any of the truckers who may be carrying out this task. There is an invitation to interference with the operation of trucks, which does not exist in the case of a railway car or any other method of transportation. I think there are a number of reasons why the members of this house should be very cautious about passing an amendment which would invite a type of bonded transport which will create increased difficulties for the customs service, which will increase the possibility of evasion, and which will provide some encouragement to the present descendants of the highwaymen of old. These are very real considerations which should not be lightly brushed aside.
I suggest also it should be remembered that this change is not going to affect a great many communities. It will affect those large communities close to the border, where there will be a possibility of breaking load and perhaps effecting delivery a little more rapidly than can be done by rail. In view of the fact that the number of places that could benefit would be comparatively limited I think great caution should be exercised in adapting an amendment of this kind, when in this particular case there might also be great uncertainty as to whether it could become effective in any event. I would remind the minister that whether or not there was agreement on the course followed, at least one province did take action in regard to the movement of bonded goods by truck transport. That decision was taken because of the damage being inflicted upon the highways of that province without any compensating advantages which would indicate that it was not wiser to have those same loads carried by rail. This amendment may invite similar action. It might also raise very real questions as to whether it is desirable to encourage the entry into Canada of these very large trucks at a time when there is a real shortage of the steel and cement needed for the improvement of our highways. Right across Canada today the construction of cement-surfaced highways is being held up because of the shortage of steel and cement. Steel, nails and cement are required not only for the construction of new highways but also for the repair and maintenance of existing highways. No matter what arguments may be put forward as to the desirability of an amendment of this kind at some future date, in addition to the other reasons I have given the need to conserve our highways as much as possible in view of 80709-2214
Customs Act
the shortage of these supplies is such that I suggest this is not the appropriate time to bring in an amendment which will invite heavier traffic of this nature on our highways.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May I ask the
minister if this amendment would facilitate the changing of loads of merchandise brought up the Alaska highway by United States trucks as far as Dawson Creek, for example, to Canadian trucks? Very often these loads in bond! to the territory of Alaska are for defence purposes, and I wonder if this amendment would facilitate such a transfer.


James Joseph McCann: This amendment would make provision for that case, because probably there would be a sufferance warehouse at that point, and the goods could be transferred to Canadian trucks there. I understand the principal difficulty in that case is that they prefer lighter trucks from Dawson Creek on; but this would make provision for that.


Jean Lesage: I do not wish to reply to the leader of the opposition, but I wonder if he contends that this amendment would supersede the traffic laws of the province of Ontario or any other province. I do not believe it would supersede any traffic laws or regulations of any province. This is for the benefit of those provinces which agree that United States trucks may come there, and which provide the sufferance warehouses where the goods may be delivered. As the leader of the opposition rightly said, this does not provide for trucking in transit. In that connection the laws of the United States go much further than ours. According to their laws Canadian trucks may go through the United States in transit in bond. That is the case with trucks from all provinces, even though some Canadian provinces have not granted reciprocal rights. An example of this traffic is the transportation by Canadian trucking companies of automobiles manufactured in Ontario to markets in western Canada. They go through United States territory, and have permission to do so. We are not going as far as that here, in spite of the fact that article 5 of the general agreement on trade and tariffs, which we have signed, provides that there shall be freedom of transit through the territory of each contracting party via the routes most convenient for international transit. Because of that obligation we are now discussing the matter with the province of Ontario, but there is nothing in this bill covering trucking in transit. It only has to do with warehouses. I believe that if we do not go some distance in granting reciprocal rights to the United States trucking industry there is some danger that we may lose the right we

Customs Act
now enjoy to have our trucks go in transit in bond through the United States, a right we need in connection with western Canada. I do not think we are going very far here; and moreover this legislation cannot supersede or take the place or reverse the effect of the traffic regulations or laws of any province.


George Alexander Drew: First of all, there is no suggestion that this supersedes any existing provincial law. The only case where the provinces so far have been called upon to *deal with this problem is in connection with the movement of goods in bond in transit through Canada from a port of entry to a port of exit.


James Joseph McCann: We had it on the Alaska
highway, too, during the war.


George Alexander Drew: And it applied also to the
Alaska highway. As has been pointed out, and as I pointed out in my opening remarks, this is not on all fours with that except to the extent that this does deal with the possibility of the entry into this country of the same type of trucks which were causing a very serious problem in the other case. It is all very well to say that we have signed some international agreement which calls for extending transport facilities through the adjoining territories of the countries signing this agreement. Common sense, however, will obviously impose the requirement that all international agreements of that kind shall be subject to appropriate restraints, having relation to the surface of the highways and the strength of the bridges over which the trucks must pass.
At this time, so far as I am aware, there is no provincial law of any province which would deal with the situation. Certain provinces were called upon to consider the effects of another provision which related to transporting goods in bond from one port to another at the boundary. I repeat my point, and the minister himself has indicated that one of the main effects of an amendment of this kind would be to avoid the necessity of breaking a load at the border and reloading it in smaller trucks. I am suggesting that is a very desirable result. I am suggesting also that it will be a very desirable result if these are Canadian trucks. Still further am I suggesting that at this time, when there is a shortage of cement and all other repair materials, we would be well advised to see that our rails are used as much as possible during this period of national emergency. For these reasons I intend to oppose section 11, and the effect of the amendment.
tMr. Lesage.]


Mr. Johnston:: I wish to say a few words on this subject. First of all, I wish to congratulate the government on putting this section in the bill. I think it is something that has been needed for quite a while. I want to speak generally about the matter just now, and then I shall go into greater detail at another time. I was not at all impressed by the remarks made a moment ago by the leader of the opposition, when he spoke about the trucking industry destroying our roads.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I did not speak about the trucking industry destroying the roads. I spoke about the fact that in the United States today we see great trucks running up to fifty and fifty-five tons being used. It was those trucks to which I referred, which damaged our roads in the past and would damage them today until we have an opportunity of creating road surfaces and bridges adequate to handle them.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not going to bicker
over terms used. The inference left was that heavily loaded trucks would destroy the roads. In the sense that they were overloaded, I would agree. We had an experience with that in the province of Alberta, particularly during the war and the building of the Alaska highway. Some very large trucks came up from the United States carrying exceedingly heavy loads, big steel girders and steel pipes that were going into the northern territories. They did not destroy our roads to the extent one would gather from a reading of the leader of the opposition's words. Every province, Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out, has laws regulating the weight of the traffic passing over its highways.
This difficulty has been overcome in a number of ways. We have been steadily improving the construction of our highways. Improvement has been made in the construction of the trucks. It is now possible to carry a twenty or thirty-ton load over a road and not do so much harm as it used to do. Some provinces are requiring that the load be spread over a greater number of axles so that the weight will be more uniformly spread over a greater road surface. This helps to maintain our roads. I am in favour of maintaining our roads, but I am not in favour of delaying this type of legislation any longer. I believe it has been delayed long enough.
I was quite impressed by the minister's remarks when he said he thought we should adjust ourselves to the changing times, particularly as that applied to transportation. It seems to me that this country has been very backward in adopting the more modern

forms of transportation. Perhaps we have not got enough of-I was going to use the term used in the United States-express highways. When one travels over those roads, particularly between Detroit and Chicago, one can see the tremendous advantages transportation has in the U.S. over Canada. There is a tremendous amount of traffic hauled over those roads. It is true, of course, that in that particular instance the road is built to carry those loads. But we must adapt ourselves to these changing times. In Canada we are not doing that very rapidly. It is true that we have started on the proposal to build the trans-Canada highway, but that is going to take at least seven years-I venture to say even longer. Surely, we are not going to wait for that length of time to adjust ourselves to these new types of transportation.
I was not very impressed with the remarks made by the leader of the opposition concerning the difficulties of bonding a truck. A moment ago it was pointed out by the member for Montmagny-L'Islet that our trucks now go through the United States in bond. For the many years I have enjoyed being a member at Ottawa, Mr. Chairman, with the exception of 1942-1946, I have driven every year through the United States on my way home. I have seen the advantages of Canadian trucks going through the United States in bond. Why we should not give the United States that same privilege, I do not know. It would have been very embarrassing for us if the United States had not extended that privilege, because we have no transcontinental road running east and west in Canada. We would have been up against a very difficult proposition if we had not enjoyed that privilege. I believe we should reciprocate, and give the United States the same advantage if they desire it.
The bonding of trucks is not difficult. Those trucks all go through a port of entry, and they can be sealed there just as efficiently as a box car. No one is going to say that a box car has never been broken into. It may happen in the odd case with a truck. Most of the business firms who are employing large trucks in their service are reputable companies. The suggestion that they are highway robbers is outrageous.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, nothing more
remote from what I said could be imagined than the statement just made by the hon. member.


Charles Edward Johnston: I never said that the hon. member said that. I am just saying that to suggest that any of these reputable trucking firms could be accused of highway robbery, such as we used to have in the old days-
Customs Act


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it should be possible for an hon. member to conduct the argument without getting so far from the truth as has the hon. member at the moment and without creating an inference that has no relation to what I have put forward in my contention.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am sorry if the hon. member thinks that I was referring to him.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, well-


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course, if he inferred that they may be highway robbers, then he can take that as he likes.
I want to ask a question or two with regard to the sufferance warehouses. It is understood that these warehouses will be constructed where there are now custom-houses?


James Joseph McCann: Yes. They will be constructed at frontier points and in cities where there are already custom-houses.


Charles Edward Johnston: Border points?


James Joseph McCann: I said frontier points or border points, and in cities where there are already custom-houses. But they will not be constructed by the government. They will be constructed by the transport people. All this bill does is to say that in the event of the transport people's building warehouses, we will be prepared to make regulations and service the warehouses. Let me read the provision:
The governor in council may make regulations for the appointment of sufferance warehouses in which goods arriving by railway, highway or air transport may be stored before entry, when such goods have been duly reported.
Then section 2 makes an amendment which says that the keeper of the warehouse is to be liable for the duty. We hold him liable. If he puts the goods in the warehouse there, we hold him liable. Then we have set out the application and a provision with reference to the storing of goods. All of this talk with reference to the highways, although it is relevant in a manner to the whole question, is not relevant to this particular amendment. That is a matter for the provinces to deal with. If the province of Ontario says, "You cannot put a fifty-ton truck on our highway; the maximum is twenty tons or twenty-five tons", then all well and good. The trucking people will have to take that problem up with the various provinces. The provinces will, I presume, have a right to put on any licence fee that they want to. But we believe that this is a part of the evolution of transportation that should be taken care of, and we believe that we should take time by the forelock and tell these people:	If you are
going to build these warehouses, pay for them and operate them, we will provide the

Customs Act
facilities for the examination of your goods there, under certain conditions. You are to be responsible for them. You are to see that the duty is ipaid. You are to apply for a licence and you will get that licence; and it is just a matter of giving them the facilities at these points where the warehouses are built. The other problems are entirely ones as to which they, the transport people, will have to deal with the several provinces.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the trucking industry will appreciate that. What I had in mind when I asked that question was that the trucking industry would be allowed to build their warehouses wherever they saw fit, provided there was enough traffic to warrant it, and then the government would provide a customs official at that point; but that the trucking industry themselves-


James Joseph McCann: But there will be what are commonly known as common warehouses. We would not provide facilities for every trucker that is going to have a warehouse; but when a combination of them go together, we would.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understand that. For
instance, there would be one in Calgary and one in Edmonton; and there would probably be one in Lethbridge. I am speaking of my own province because I know that one better than any other. There would probably be one in Camrose where there is a custom house already. I think that would cover any objection that the transport concerns may have in regard to this. In fact, I think I can assure the minister that they are quite pleased that he is taking the progressive step that he is taking in seeing to it that these sufferance [DOT]warehouses are being built.
Once again may I say that I do not think there is any danger of over-abuse of the privilege because there is sufficient inspection now in progress to look after any safeguarding that is necessary.


George Alexander Drew: On a matter of privilege, in the event that my words may have been in any way open to the surprising interpretation placed upon them by the hon. member who has just spoken, I wish to make it clear-


Charles Edward Johnston: I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying.


George Alexander Drew: I say that in the event that it is at all possible that my words may in any way have been open to the surprising interpretation put on them by the hon. member who has just spoken, I wish to make it quite dear that when I was referring to the possibility of practices developing in regard to interference with the trucks, I was not

suggesting interference by the trucking companies but rather interference with the trucks themselves by others.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Fulford:: I cannot help viewing with
alarm section 11 of Bill No. 198, because I feel a certain amount of international business will be taken away from the railways. Certainly this is not the time to take business from our Canadian railways.
I agree with the minister when he says that one cannot set back the wheels of progress, and we realize that we are in a period of transition, so far as transportation is concerned. But at this particular time I wonder if it is wise to make these concessions to the American truckers. I wonder if we are not depriving Canadian railways of business which is legitimately theirs.
I notice further in the minister's remarks that he said that goods coming in by truck are, after examination at the border, loaded into Canadian trucks.


James Joseph McCann: They are continued on in
the American trucks.


George Taylor Fulford: It continues on in the American trucks?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


George Taylor Fulford: Then one of my worries has been dissipated by the minister's remarks.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the
hon. member would permit me to interject the statement that a great number of Canadian truckers truck goods into the United States. They have the right to do so. Then they come back, loaded with American goods for Canadian importers.
I have before me a list of trucking companies actively engaged in the transportation of package freight as between the United States and Canada. They are: Consolidated Truck Lines, Toronto; Colville Cartage Company, Toronto; Direct-Winters Transport, Toronto; International Cartage Company, Windsor; Maislin Bros. Transport, Montreal; Bingaman Motor Express Company Incorporated, Montreal; Montreal and New York Express Limited, Montreal; Lavigne's Red Wing Express, Montreal; Dench of Canada Limited, Calgary; Canadian Freightways Limited, Calgary; Smith Transport, Montreal; Seattle-Vancouver, B.C. Motor Co. Limited, Vancouver and British Columbia-Seattle Transport, Vancouver.

I do not believe that is a full list of the big trucking companies carrying package freight from Canada to the United States, and coming back with return loads. Those people, of course, would continue with their Canadian trucks to the point of destination. And in the event that it works the other way, American trucks which come into Canada would go to their point of destination, probably pick up a load in Canada and take it back to the United States.


George Taylor Fulford: While I am pleased to have
that information, I think it proves my point that these international trucking concerns are interfering with the express and freight carried by the railways. Has a survey been made, or has there been any estimate as to the loss of revenue to Canadian railways as a result of allowing these trucks to come through the border in bond, to points in Canada?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that a survey has been made with reference to that. However I can say, on the assertion of prominent trucking companies, that as a result of what happened last summer during the railway strike, at which time the truckers carried on the business of moving package freight and other freight in this country, they did retain about 35 per cent of that new business. I point that out to show that they are not an unimportant factor in the transportation business of our country.


John Lambert Gibson: Have the C.P.R. and the
C.N.R. made representations opposing this change?


James Joseph McCann: No, they have not.


Mr. Simmons:: I heartily congratulate the hon. member for Bow River upon the remarks he made this afternoon concerning section 11 of Bill 198. The movement of goods by bonded truckers along the Alaska highway means much to us in the north, where transportation facilities are limited, indeed. I believe every consideration should be given to the transportation of goods by truck in remote areas, and I congratulate the Minister of National Revenue upon having introduced this amendment to the Customs Act.
I do not agree with the remarks of the leader of the opposition respecting difficulties in sealing trucks carrying bonded goods, especially along the Alaska highway. I have noted for some time the manner in which these trucks have been sealed, and' I know that the trucks operating along the Alaska highway can be sealed as securely as any railway box car. These trucks are sealed with Canadian customs Tyden seals which are numbered, and each one of which must be accounted for. Therefore I cannot see
Customs Act
any reason why any freight in bond should be pilfered or stolen. I hope every encouragement will be given to these truckers in the north country, and especially in the remote areas of the Yukon Territory, northern British Columbia and other parts of Canada. It means a great deal to those of us who live up there to have this service.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister referred to the different trucking companies employed in this kind of business, and referred particularly to Dench of Canada Limited. Is not Dench, in Calgary, owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway? If that is true, then the C.P.R. is trucking goods into the United States in the manner which has been described.


James Joseph McCann: I must admit I do not know anything about the ownership of Dench of Canada Limited.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have one or two questions. The minister said, as I understood him, that there had been no representations from the railways.


James Joseph McCann: I corrected that. I said there had been representations from the Ship-byRail Association.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What discussion was there with the interested parties? The minister referred to the trucking association. Was there any discussion with any other interested parties?


James Joseph McCann: Personally, I have had discussions only with the secretary of the Ship-by-Rail Association. There have been other representations. Here is a communication from the Canadian Retail Federation which says:
Dear Dr. McCann:
I have been instructed to tell you that the Canadian Retail Federation view with much satisfaction the contents of the House of Commons Bill 198, section 11, by which provision is made for goods to be brought into the country under bond and by highway transport.
The federation is of the opinion that this will be helpful to the retail trade, and we wish to express our appreciation for the action that has been taken to make this possible.
Yours truly,
E. F. K. Nelson General Manager, Canadian Retail Federation
Then there is one from the recording secretary of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of Ontario, expressing opposition to Bill No. 198. Then there is one from the hon. member for Nipissing. There is also one from the Ship-by-Rail Association, to which I have

Customs Act
referred already. Then there is one from the Canadian Industrial Traffic League under date of May 14, reading:
The Canadian Industrial Traffic League, national organization of industrial traffic managers, has noted with satisfaction the intention of the government, as set out in Bill 198 currently before the house, to recognize by legislative action the principle of permitting the entry into Canada in-bond of shipments by highway transport.
The league has been on record in the past as favouring this principle which will make it possible for importers to clear highway transported goods at Canadian interior points.
On behalf of this organization which represents many of the companies interested in this principle, I take pleasure in bringing the above views to your attention.
Yours very truly,
The Canadian Industrial Traffic League,
H. A. Mann,
.	General Secretary
There is another one from the Canadian Importers and Trading Association, under date of May 14, addressed to myself and reading:
Dear Dr. McCann:
Members of this association were delighted to see that you propose to amend the Customs Act so as to allow goods to enter the country in highway trucks in bond.
We feel that this change in the act, when translated into practice, will be of very great benefit to the import trade of Canada and wish to express this association's hearty approval of the proposed change.
Yours sincerely,
Canadian Importers and Traders Association, Inc.
H. C. MacKendrick,
General Manager
I do not think it is necessary to place all this correspondence on the record. I am just taking the letters as they are on the file. They all appear to be letters in appreciation of the action that has been taken. They are from influential bodies. Here is one from the Canadian Automotive Transportation Association, Toronto, under date May 11, and reading:
I wish to express the sincere appreciation of the Canadian trucking industry for the action which you have taken, on behalf of the government, in introducing Bill 198 amending the Customs Act to permit "in bond" trucking.
With regard to the Customs Act, it has long been the view of this association that, in the language of the bill it was "necessary to extend the power to cover goods specifically arriving by highway."
The amendment to the act places all forms of transportation on an equal footing with regard to "in bond" transportation and establishes for the shipping public the same privileges in the movement of international traffic by the several media.
If it develops that this bill is to come before a house committee at which witnesses will appear, it is the desire of this association to have a representative present to register the trucking industry's strong support of the bill.

The other letters on the file are my replies to the different people who have written.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the
minister would put them all on Hansard we could see them.


Mr. Casselman:: Put the answers on the
record.


James Joseph McCann: I am reading them as they
come; I am not picking them out.


George Alexander Drew: You have missed a few.


Arza Clair Casselman: You are reading every
fourth letter.


James Joseph McCann: There they are. It is just
what happens in the case of almost everything that comes before the house. Just as we have opposition so do we have letters from people who commend our action. It is a case of majority rule.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it
from what the minister has said that this privilege will be granted to all trucking companies. The minister read quite a long list and I take it it will be general.


James Joseph McCann: Yes. There would be certain regulations that would apply to all companies, and one would be the matter of bond. This was raised by the leader of the opposition, although he did not express it in just this way. We would not bond a truck that was put together with hay wire. It would have to be sufficiently substantial that it could not be broken into.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that this matter has been before the minister's department and I suppose other departments for some years, that is the matter of bonding trucks.


James Joseph McCann: Representations, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Has this
been a gradual development or has something happened this year, perhaps in the way of special representations to the department, to change the view which I understand has prevailed in the past?


James Joseph McCann: No, nothing especial happened during the year that I know of except increased transportation by truck. These people claim that they should be treated on the same basis as the other transportation companies.


George Alexander Drew: I gather from what the minister has just said that he feels that truck traffic of this kind is being impeded by the existing restrictions upon the movement between Canada and the United States.


James Joseph McCann: I am of the opinion that
they think they are not getting as much of the traffic as they would if they were allowed to truck in bond to interior warehouses.


George Alexander Drew: Without going into too precise detail, could the minister inform us what the regulations would be before a truck of this type would be permitted to ship in bond?


James Joseph McCann: We have not gone
exhaustively into the matter of regulations, but a trucking company would have to put up sufficient bond, based I presume upon its volume of business. When it received a licence it would have to put up a bond that it would be responsible for the customs duties on the goods held in the sufferance warehouse.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has given us a
long list of trucking companies already moving between Canada and the United States and I recognize quite a number of them as being highly reputable trucking firms. I gather that there would be no limitation on goods being carried in bond so long as the trucking companies could meet the requirements of the department?


James Joseph McCann: That is correct.


George Alexander Drew: That being so does that not
impose upon the department the requirement of providing fairly extensive supervision, such as is now the case with regard to the railroads?


James Joseph McCann: As the hon. gentleman knows, the railroads are bonded. I do not think it would impose a lot more work on the department in the way of supervision. If the quantity of goods coming in is worth X dollars, they would have to be examined at one place or the other, thus distributing the load to a certain extent. If you needed examiners in a sufferance warehouse in Toronto you probably would need fewer at Niagara Falls and Fort Erie. But this is a business that is increasing enormously. A few months ago I visited our points of entry from the United States at Lacolle, Black Pool, Windsor and other places. The amount of business coming over the bridge from Detroit and through the tunnel is enormous, and it is the same at Lacolle, Black Pool and these other places. There are great big yards where scores of trucks wait their turn, and probably have to wait a day or two. I suggest that if these trucks could have a bonded seal put on them, and they had to go to Toronto, Guelph or any of those interior points, you could clear them in much less time, let them proceed, have their loads unloaded there and put in a bonded warehouse, let the appraisers do their w'ork, collect your customs, and you would
Customs Act
be speeding up the business for the department and giving better service to the public.


George Alexander Drew: In indicating the nature of this movement, the minister referred particularly to places fairly near the border.


James Joseph McCann: That is only an illustration.


George Alexander Drew: I was not raising it by way of criticism because as a matter of fact I agree with him. That is the place where this facility would really be of the greatest advantage. I noticed that he placed in order Guelph and Toronto, and I was not going to question the appropriateness of the sequence of the names of the two cities.


Mr. Martin:: You had better place Windsor first.


George Alexander Drew: Just as an example, I would be interested to know what northern cities in Quebec and Ontario we can take that would have facilities of warehouses of this kind.


James Joseph McCann: Probably in Quebec there would be Arvida, Shawinigan Falls, Chicoutimi, and Quebec city itself. In Ontario there would be North Bay, Timmins, Sudbury, places of prominence where shipments and importations to those particular places would warrant it.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has mentioned a large list of trucking services, and I will agree that in every case he has mentioned they are highly reputable firms with a long established background of service in their own particular type of transportation. Nevertheless he indicates this would be available to an extended list of trucking services, and all those would have the opportunity to operate this bonded service through to the points north that he has mentioned. That is correct, is it not?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: The minister indicates that is so. May I raise the question as to whether he does or does not think that this would call for a greater measure of supervision than is called for now in the case of railways operating over certain limited lines to these same northern points which he has just mentioned.


James Joseph McCann: It might well be that would be the case, but we would be prepared to give that service to the public.


John Lambert Gibson: May I ask whether there is any limit on how far south we can go? The minister said a short time ago that it was a reciprocal arrangement with sufferance warehouses on the other side. Would there be any limit at all?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know of any limit. I know that a lot of these trucking companies

Customs Act
that go into the United States have made arrangements with the different states into which they go. I do not think one general permission allows them to go into any state in the union. The states have different state laws, but the big trucking companies probably do a substantial business to the state of New York or to Pennsylvania, and they would arrange for permission to travel over the highways of those states.


George Alexander Drew: Can the minister inform us whether it is not a fact that there are a number of states that have restrictive laws which would not permit delivery of this kind?


James Joseph McCann: That is true. They have got to make their own arrangements.


George Alexander Drew: Will the minister tell us what states permit delivery of this kind and what states do not?


James Joseph McCann: I cannot name all the forty-eight states, although I used to be able to. I know that a lot of Canadian trucks go as far south as Florida, and many of them go into Pennsylvania and the western states along the coast. They go into the states of Washington, California, and so on. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that I do not know of anybody coming to reside in Canada and moving household furniture from the United States, or moving it from Canada to the United States, who would not sooner do it by truck than by rail.


George Alexander Drew: But they are not affected by this.


James Joseph McCann: It is a part of the business.


George Alexander Drew: They are not affected by this amendment.


James Joseph McCann: Not at all. It is a part of their business, and I am stating that to show the demand there is for truck service.


George Alexander Drew: That is quite true, and that is exactly why I am asking some of these questions. I know and have reason to know the nature of the activities of some of the trucking services he has mentioned. Some of these trucking services do travel as far south as Florida and they come back with loads the other way.


James Joseph McCann: That is true.


George Alexander Drew: But this amendment would not affect them at all. These are the kind of trucking services that would carry a load of one kind to Florida and carry a load of fruit back. There are a number of trucking services on the other side of the line that would carry their loads here, clear customs in the ordinary way at the border and carry a load back. This is something entirely

different. This is a case of bulk movement in something that approaches the volume of railway services. I think one thing that members should keep in mind is that we are getting into something quite different from ordinary trucking services. I heard some reference made today to the fact that certain hon. members had seen the advantage of these facilities as they travelled to western Canada by United States roads. That is so.
We know that a great number of cars and other things available for sale are moved in that way, but there are also a great many things that are moved from the United States into Canada in that way and through Canada. This applies to the handling of goods in bulk under bond, and that is not something that the ordinary trucking service is handling. If it were not that I have such a complete belief in the responsibility of ministers I might be led into the belief that there might be a bill of goods sold to the minister with regard to some of these details. I hope that is not the case. I do not want to suggest anything of that kind, but I should like to feel that the minister is absolutely convinced that there is a need for the particular facilities that are being given in this case as distinguished from the movement of goods back and forth by truck which is open to everyone now without an amendment of this kind.
I do not want to inject a controversial note into this matter, but the minister knows, as I know, that this is something that has been urged for some time, and that strong objections have been raised as well as arguments in its favour. I should like to know why it is that, at the very time when we have reason to be most careful about the maintenance of our highways and the weight of the loads that will come here, we should make an amendment which in its effect might conceivably facilitate the trucking of loads and their delivery but at the same time would certainly result in heavier loads being moved over these highways.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, we have got into a general discussion of the trucking business. To answer the hon. member's question, I am absolutely convinced that the time has arrived to set up sufferance warehouses in Canada for the benefit of the general public, to meet the needs of the department and to put the trucking business on an equal basis with other common carriers.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman-


James Joseph McCann: May I add that nothing has occurred at this particular time to bring it about. The amendment has been in contemplation for some time. We wanted to bring it

in a year ago. Owing to the condition of the order paper it was postponed for a year.


George Alexander Drew: I can understand the minister's explanation, in view of the pressure of work at that time; but I would point out that if there are no special circumstances which call for this amendment at this time from the point of view of extending this service, there are reasons against it. I do not want to labour this point except to suggest that if this change will produce a larger volume of goods moving in bulk, this is not the time to take such a step. Over and over again in this house we have heard of the difficulty in obtaining cement and the other supplies essential for the maintenance and extension of road services in this country. I do not believe for one moment that our friends in the United States will in any way question our good judgment if, when highways are going to be placed under heavy use and supplies are not as freely available as they were previously, we decide we should not do something which would have the effect of increasing the wear and tear on those highways.


Mr. Catherwood:: I believe the minister said this afternoon that sufferance warehouses would not be set up in any locality where there was no customs office. 1 believe we all agree that the object of subsections 4 and 6 of section 11 is good. Now if a transport company wanted to establish a sufferance warehouse at a point where there is no customs office at the present time, would the minister give consideration to the establishment of such a warehouse if business warranted it?


James Joseph McCann: The gist of my hon. friend's question is "if business warrants it." If business warrants changes, either in the opening of customs offices or the establishment of sufferance warehouses or anything else, certainly we will use our best efforts to bring facilities up to date.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Take the case of a truck going to Floridia with a load1 of potatoes and coming back with a load of fruit. Would it have to go through a bonded warehouse to get cleared? Could it not clear at the point of entry?


James Joseph McCann: Certainly; it could either clear at the port of entry or go through to a bonded warehouse.


George Alexander Drew: The question and answer just given indicate exactly why I hope no hon. members will be under any illusions as to the effect of this amendment. In the ordinary case a truck with a uniform load
Customs Act
will not be affected in any way by this amendment; it will be cleared at the border in the usual way. It is these huge bulk loads that need to be broken up which call for this change at this time. In view of the nature of the discussion, in view of the fact that the minister has said no special circumstances have arisen which call for this amendment, I move that this bill be referred back to the committee on railways and shipping so we may hear the evidence which would support an amendment of this nature at this time.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. gentleman appears to think this could be done all in a few weeks. I do not anticipate that this is going to have practical application immediately. We are passing the legislation which will give us authority to handle sufferance warehouses when they are established. Before they can be established in any province these trucking companies will have to take up the matter with the provincial government and ascertain what regulations that government has in reference to the use of its highways, and many other matters that will no doubt come up. So it is not a question of whether they can get steel and other materials to build super-highways. That may happen, but it will be sometime in the future.


George Alexander Drew: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise and report progress, and that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways and shipping.


James Joseph McCann: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I submit that at this stage the bill cannot be referred to a committee.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: That is right. However, I will accept the motion that the committee rise and report progress; that is in order.
Motion negatived: Yeas, 19; nays, 57.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Section agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 293, respecting units of length and mass.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the parliamentary assistant going to give any explanation?

Length and Mass Units Act


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I can, make a statement concerning the bill either now or in committee, as hon. members may wish. I am completely in the hands of hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe the minister should make an explanation, if he will, of this bill.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the primary standards of weights and measures are now defined in the Weights and Measures Act. The unit of length is fixed with reference to a specific bar, and that of the Canadian pound by reference to a specific weight of metal. In defining the primary standards to be used, it is obviously desirable that there be uniformity of standards all over the world. On the other hand, it must be realized that any given bar of metal or a given weight will vary slightly from time to time. It is quite true that the change is very slight in any one year. It is so slight it is almost impossible to measure it. But over a period of decades the amount of change may be of practical significance.
The present Canadian fundamental standards of length and mass were received from the British government in 1873, when our first Weights and Measures Act was passed. They were accurate copies of the imperial standards which, at that time, were representative of the finest technique in precise measurement. In the intervening eighty years there has been a great deal of advance in the science of metrology, including the establishment of special laboratories in all the principal countries of the world for making precise measurements, such as our own division in our national research council laboratory.
This development has led to the recognition of the fact that the old standards of yard and pound are changing very slightly. On the other hand, the international metre and kilogram standards established at the international bureau of weights and measures at Paris have been found to be remarkably constant. For these reasons it was suggested, at the royal society empire scientific conference in 1946, that the standard yard be referred to the international metre and the pound to the international kilogram by fixed ratios. If all nations agree to the same ratios between yard and metre, and between pound and kilogram, then there will be only one standard length and one standard weight. Therefore, even if there should be very


slight changes in these fundamental standards in the course of centuries, no difficulty will arise in international commerce and international science.
Actually in the United Kingdom there is an order in council of 1898 that defines the ratio of the pound and the kilogram, and there is a similar act in the United States giving the same ratio. This bill proposes to establish this same ratio for Canada. This ratio is the same as the present Canadian standard pound, so that there would be no change except that any future change of the actual standard pound would be of no consequence. The ratio used in the bill for the yard and the metre is between that actually applying to the standard yard of the United Kingdom and the United States, and is that recommended by the royal society empire scientific conference. It has the endorsation of many standardizing bodies and scientific societies, both in the countries of the commonwealth and in the United States.
By this bill units of measurement will be based on standards, the stability of which has been proved as nearly perfect as can be attained. The second part of the bill establishes that the operation of maintaining the standard yard and the standard pound at the proposed values is the responsibility of the national research council, and that they will supply reference standards calibrated in terms of the fundamental standards to other government departments. That is a logical step to take. It will be recalled that in the national research council legislation one of the powers of the council has to do specifically with maintaining units of weight and measurement.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: As a matter of information, is the parliamentary assistant in a position to say whether those standards are kept in Canada, that is the ones he referred to, the bar and the weight? Second, what instruments are used for the kilogram and for the metre? Are they similar to those referred to in the first place?


George James McIlraith: The present Canadian primary standards are maintained at the national research council. The international metre is maintained at the international bureau of weights and measures at Paris. The method of measurement of that particular bar, which is the most constant one of all the bars of measurement in the United Kingdom, the United States, France or Canada:, is by wave length of light.


William Joseph Browne: What about the pound, then, and the kilogram?


George James McIlraith: With respect to the kilogram, I am afraid it is too technical to

explain. I could very easily get the explanation for the hon. member, if he wants it. It is checked periodically by the international conference of scientists, that is the kilogram, and it is the more technically perfect unit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have two questions. Did I understand the parliamentary assistant to say that the ratios adopted by the United Kingdom and the United States are slightly different? The other question is, are there any important countries with whom we have any volume of trade and commerce who have not adopted similar standards, so that some difficulty would be created in trading with them?


George James McIlraith: If I may deal with the last point first, Mr. Chairman, any difference between the present primary standard of length and the one now proposed is so small as to be beyond any industrial significance at all. It would be something less than one part in one million. With respect to the present Canadian pound and the one defined in the bill, it is rather interesting, but at the moment it is identical. That pound is also identical with the British pound, so that at the moment the three are identical.
With respect to the yard, there is a slight difference between the U.S. yard and the United Kingdom yard. In this definition we are adopting a definition of the empire scientific conference, which is in between the United States and United Kingdom standard and is slightly different from the old Canadian primary standard, something less than one part in one million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it then the difference between the three is so small it is not of any significance at the moment.


George James McIlraith: It is of no industrial significance whatever. It is a matter of getting a scientifically accurate definition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There seems to be one thing which is vital. Can the parliamentary assistant certify to us of his own knowledge that the pound is forty-five million, three hundred and fifty-nine thousand, two hundred and forty-three one-hundred-millionths of the international kilogram? It seems to me we do not get anywhere unless the parliamentary assistant can certify to that.


George James McIlraith: It is a rather interesting sidelight on the activities of a parliamentary assistant that sometimes in the course of his duties he has some interesting conversations with some of our scientific men. The physicists tell me that is so, and I am afraid I have to take their word for it. I must say
Length and Mass Units Act that some of the conversations are most interesting on that subject, but for the life of me I could not represent that I knew very much about it.


John Lambert Gibson: Can the parliamentary assistant certify what the imperial quart is?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-National research council to maintain standard.
William Joseph Browne: There is a statement here that the national research council shall maintain standards of length and mass calibrated in terms of the units defined in this act. Does that mean that the national research council will maintain standards which have been compared with the international standards at Paris?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that puts the duty squarely on them. For instance, when the other legislation comes before the house having to do with weights and measures, it will be seen that it is their duty to maintain the Canadian standard yard and to maintain what are called the departmental standards in terms of the Canadian standard.


William Joseph Browne: Will they use the old standards?


George James McIlraith: Oh, yes; the old standards will still be retained.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 191, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is the minister going to make a statement at this time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will make a short statement, Mr. Speaker. The parliament of Canada, under its authority over the subject of *criminal law, has passed in the Criminal Code a statute which defines the various crimes and offences in this country and prescribes the penalties which must be imposed upon those who have been convicted of such crimes and offences. It also provides for the manner in which such sentences shall be served.
For the purpose of considering the present bill, the governing provision here is section
3476	HOUSE OF
Prisons and Reformatories Act 1056 of the Criminal Code which provides that everyone who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than two years shall, if no other place is expressly mentioned, be sentenced to imprisonment in the common jail of the district, county or place in which the sentence is pronounced, or if there is no jail there, then in the common jail which is nearest to that locality. It is in line with that provision in the Criminal Code that the Prisons and Reformatories Act is passed. It actually is an extension of this idea which is set out in section 1056 of the Criminal Code. The Prisons and Reformatories Act provides, in part I of it, for provincial prisons and reformatories generally. Then in parts II to IX the act is made applicable to different types of reform institutions in the various provinces, part II dealing with Ontario, part III with Quebec, part IV with Nova Scotia and so on.
Clause 1 of the bill before the house has to do with a provision in part I of the Prisons and Reformatories Act-that is the part which has a general application to all the provinces-for a statutory partial remission of sentence for good conduct. To grant such a remission as this is the normal procedure in most jails in the provinces of Canada. It is considered-and that is the reason why we put this clause 1 into this biff-that the same privilege should be applied to prisoners in the Northwest and Yukon Territories. The granting of this remission for good conduct is provided for in sections 18 to 21 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act. These sections do not have effect until they are proclaimed, and up until the present time they have not been proclaimed in the Yukon or Northwest Territories.
The present section 18 provides that if there is in any province a prison of such a character as to render practicable the administration of remission of sentence for good conduct, and if the lieutenant governor in council has made rules for keeping a correct record of such conduct, the governor general in council may, by proclamation, declare these sections in force within such province from and after the day named in such proclamation.
While the word "province" in these sections, by virtue of the Interpretation Act, includes both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, there is an absence of rules made by the lieutenant governor of the province in those two territories, because there is not any lieutenant governor. The purpose of clause 1 is to make it clear that, in those two territories where there is no lieutenant governor of a province, the necessary rules can be provided by action of the governor general in council.
[Mr. Garson.l

Then as to clause 2 of the bill, from time to time over the years various amendments and additions have been made to the act in order to provide for special types of institutions in the various provinces. For example, in the province of Ontario there is the Ontario reformatory and the Andrew Mercer reformatory for female prisoners; and as of recent date, there is a new type of prison in British Columbia known as the New Haven. The occasion of this clause 2 being before the chamber is that on November 18,	1950, the deputy attorney
general of Alberta wrote to the Department of Justice a letter from which I should like to quote. He said:
In this province-
That is, Alberta.
-we are establishing a new penal institution at Bowden and it is proposed that first offenders and persons who have committed minor offences might be screened out of our jails and sent to this institution which will be operated somewhat along the lines of the prison farms in the province of Ontario.
In order to enable the province to transfer prisoners to this new institution, I think it is necessary to make provision for the same in the Prisons and Reformatories Act and I have drafted a new part to the act to be made applicable to the province of Alberta.
It is, of course, pursuant to this request that clause 2 is introduced in the present amending bill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaket, from what the minister has said, I understand that this bill, under the new section 18, gives to the governor in council discretion to declare a prison in a province to be of such a character that sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, 1927, might well be applied to it; and further, gives to the governor in council the power to declare those sections in force with regard to that particular prison.
In those provinces which qualify, there is an opportunity for a prisoner to earn certain remission of the sentence to which he has been condemned. Apparently, among the qualifications of these prisons, there must be in that prison provision, for the keeping of a correct daily record of every prisoner in such prison. The terms of the clause are as follows:
(b) rules for keeping a correct record of the daily conduct of every prisoner in such prison, noting his behaviour, industry, diligence and faithfulness and the strictness with which he observes the prison regulations . . .
I have put that on the record for the purpose of saying that, in my opinion, that is a great achievement if it will be applied in many of these institutions, because it implies a study of the individual. It is a final admission that it is only upon the basis of the study of the individual that we can put

into effect a reform rather than a punitive approach. In other words, a reform program will have to be handled on the basis of the individual, whereas a mere punitive program could be handled on the treatment of the mass.
As I sat here this evening, thinking about this subject, I sent for a copy of Hansard for November 15, 1945. My mind harks back to the very fine speech made by the late member for Kindersley. I thought it was a memorable speech. While I did not have time to read all of it this evening, I did jot down one or two of the points made by the late Mr. Jaenicke on that occasion. I have noted that he praised the Archambault report and said in connection with it:
Our penitentiary system is more a system of punishment than a system of paying attention to the reformation of the convict.
And later:
Our present system makes real habitual criminals out of those who could be reformed and made useful members of society.
He stated further that there had been no attempt at segregation. Incidentally, Mr. Jaenicke had made a practical study of the matter by visiting Kingston penitentiary, and I believe certain others. In that connection he said:
I find that no real progress has been made with respect to education since the commission made its report.
Then he followed by a criticism of the standard of education and the standard of training of teachers in that institution. At page 2169 he said:
The most important item of reform which we need in Canada is the establishment of proper institutions for the treatment of young offenders between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one years.
He went a step farther and said he would include those up to twenty-three, as is done in England. It is on that that I would base the few general observations I should like to make about our penitentiaries, their inmateS and the manner in which I believe our present system could be improved.
Before going further I would say-and I may elaborate on this later-that our prison system has been improved over the last few years. Nowhere is the old adage of prevention being better than cure more true than in the field of penology. Treatment and re-education are replacing the old and wasteful punitive approach. When I say "wasteful" I am not thinking altogether in terms of money, but wasteful also in terms of human resources. In passing however I would direct the attention of hon. members to page 26 of the estimates where they will see that our penal system is costing us, in round figures, $9,072,000.
Prisons and Reformatories Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to raise a point of order when the hon. member is speaking, but I would point out that the bill with which we are concerned is directed to provincial reformatories and prisons. It has nothing whatever to do with any of our federal penitentiaries.
One of the drawbacks of bringing in a discussion about federal penitentiaries in a debate dealing with provincial prisons is that if any remarks are made in extenso concerning federal penitentiaries I shall feel bound to make some reply. In this way the time of the house would be diverted to the discussion of a subject which is not before the house. I wonder if the hon. member might not see fit to make his worth-while observations, all of which we shall be delighted to hear, upon some other occasion- perhaps when the estimates of the Department of Justice are before the committee of the whole.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would point out to the
minister that the rules affecting federal penitentiaries are applicable to most of the provincial prisons. Certainly the system of education, and the treatment of young offenders, with which I propose to deal, is applicable to both. I thought when we were discussing the principle of this bill I might record my views in this connection. If on the other hand the minister has any decided objection, and would like me to postpone my remarks until we are considering the penitentiaries estimates, I could do so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: From having heard my hon. friend in the past I know that anything he will contribute will be a first-class effort, that it will be a thoughtful and helpful contribution toward the administration of our penitentiaries. But it really does put me in a very awkward position, because the bill we have before us is concerned with two simple points, namely as to whether a new part X is to be applicable to the province of Alberta and, secondly, whether this provision in the Prisons and Reformatories Act dealing with remission earned by a prisoner by good conduct shall be made applicable to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, in each case in reference to a provincial institution. In order that hon. members may have before them the whole picture I should like to be in a position to reply to any observation the hon. member may make in regard to our federal penitentiary system. That subject is not really before us at the moment.
If it will not embarrass the hon. member unduly I think perhaps it would be better if he were to discuss the matter when the justice estimates are before us.
3478	HOUSE OF
Prisons and Reformatories Act


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am always more embarrassed in making a speech than in not making one, and I would suffer no embarrassment from having to stop at the moment. I must admit that some of the points I shall make apply directly to the penitentiaries. At the same time I believe some of them apply to the type of prisons we are discussing here- because I had intended to discuss the matter from the standpoint of the psychological treatment of prisoners, particularly the younger ones. However, I see the minister's point. Probably it is well taken, and I shall reserve my remarks until a later stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Conditions on which sections 19, 20 and 21 may be declared in force.
Mr. Gillis:: This bill does nothing more
than to give the governor in council the right to bring certain western provinces within the scope of the national act. That act lacks something which is now going to be passed on to the provinces. It is a matter I have discussed on two or three occasions in the house. In many parts of the country prisoners are often sentenced to long or short terms in the penitentiary, and then found to be suffering from contagious diseases because of which they cannot be taken into the penitentiary. The department is now expanding that by bringing the provinces under the general national rule.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not want to interrupt
my hon. friend, but before he gets deeper into this argument perhaps I should indicate a correction. Apparently I did not make as clear as I tried to the distinction between the provincial prison system and the federal penitentiary system. What we are discussing here is the provincial prison system. It may seem rather anomalous that the foundation for that should be a federal statute but, as I indicated, in exercising our jurisdiction over crime we have to provide for sentences imposed in respect of violations of the Criminal Code. Where the sentence is less than two years, under our arrangement the convicted person would go to a provincial prison. To that end it is necessary for us to pass a federal statute by which we lay the foundation for provincial prison custody of those prisoners guilty of offences under the Criminal Code. I think the point my hon. friend is raising has to do with the federal penitentiary system and not with this particular matter.


Clarence Gillis: As the minister indicated, it is rather tangled up. I have no intention of


arguing the thing; I merely want to ask the minister if any progress is being made in establishing a Central institution to take care of those who are not acceptable in the regular penitentiaries?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am a little tangled up also. Is the minister really saying that the subject matter of this bill refers only to provincial institutions?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And therefore it is not competent for us to comment on those provincial institutions in this debate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not at all. It is quite proper to comment upon the provincial institutions, but not upon the federal penitentiary system. If we did that we would get into a lengthy debate that would have nothing to do with the matter before the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The present section 18 reads:
If, in any province, there is at any time, a prison of such a character as to render practicable the application of the three sections next following to such province, and if the lieutenant governor makes rules for keeping a correct record of the daily conduct of every prisoner in such prison, noting his behaviour, industry, diligence and faithfulness,-
Is that in effect saying there are many provincial institutions where it is not possible to keep a correct record of the conduct of prisoners? Is that the implication? .


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is no implication, it is a specific provision to the effect that where there is in a province a prison of such a character as to render practicable the application of the next three sections, which provide by statute for earned remission for good conduct-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister describe what is meant by "such a character as to render practicable"?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I am speaking correctly when I say that it is a character shared by all provincial prisons in all of the ten provinces of Canada. That is, it should be a properly constituted prison, properly staffed. We satisfy ourselves that they can administer a provision of this sort and then we say to them, "If you have this proper character of prison and if the lieutenant governor in council of your province will make rules for the keeping of correct records of the daily conduct of every prisoner so that you can demonstrate to us that this is not a haphazard business, but that when a man is given a statutory remission he is given it because he has earned it by his conduct according to your records; when you have

done that we will pass an order of the governor in council making the sections 19, 20, and 21 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act applicable to that provincial prison". The present amendment is brought before the house because there is no lieutenant governor in council in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and therefore there is no lieutenant governor to make such rules and thus enable us to apply the statute. It is in order to enable us to provide machinery to comply with the statute and to make these same rules available in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories that this present bill is before the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I take it that once we are satisfied that the institution is capable in the manner indicated of so conducting its affairs as to make these three sections applicable, we as a federal parliament not only have no duty but have no right to go further and comment on that provincial institution?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite right.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Did I understand the minister to say that the prisons in all ten provinces are of such a character as to come under this clause?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am speaking just from memory; I have not checked it within the last while, but I believe they would all be of that character. If anything turns on that I shall be glad to check and give the information to my hon. friend on the orders of the day tomorrow.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is it true that every prison in every province works under rules for the keeping of correct records of the daily conduct of every prisoner?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister sure of that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend should not come to any wrong conclusion. The good conduct which is referred to here is the good conduct provided in the following three sections, 19, 20 and 21. Perhaps I had better read those sections. They are as follows:
19.	Any judge sentencing any prisoner to imprisonment in any prison named in the proclamation in the last preceding section mentioned, may sentence such prisoner for a term not more than one-sixth longer than the maximum term at present prescribed by law for the offence; and any such sentence may be carried out in such prison, although it is for any term not exceeding two years and four months.
20.	Every prisoner sentenced to such prison shall be entitled to earn a remission of a portion of the time for which he is sentenced, not exceeding five days for every month during which he is exemplary
Petition of Right Act
in behaviour, industry and faithfulness, and does not violate any of the prison rules; and if prevented from labour by sickness, not intentionally produced by himself, he shall be entitled to earn, by good conduct, a remission not exceeding two and one-half days for every such month.
21.	Every such prisoner who commits any breach of the laws or of the prison regulations shall, besides any other penalty to which he is liable, be liable to forfeit the whole or any part of any remission which he has so earned.
Therefore I think the good conduct which is referred to in the sections here is perhaps a rather narrower type of good conduct than that which the hon. member for Saskatoon had in contemplation regarding the general over-all welfare of the prisoner, but it is the usual statutory earned good conduct remission which is available to prisoners in provincial jails in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Next sitting of the house.


Alphonse Fournier: Now, by leave of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Bill read the third time and passed.



PETITION OF RIGHT ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 192, to amend the Petition of Right Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it may be fairly claimed that this bill represents an important step in our legal history. As is well known, all legal proceedings by the subject against the -crown in the right of Canada must be taken in the exchequer court pursuant to the Exchequer Court Act and the Petition of Right Act. The latter of these two acts requires that before the petition of right filed by the subject with the Secretary of State can be proceeded with, a governor general's fiat must first be obtained. The purpose of this bill is to abolish the necessity for securing this fiat. Thus what we propose is the abrogation of an age-old precept of our constitutional and public law. In this year 1951 we are writing the final chapter in the history of an important legal doctrine which can be traced back to the time of Edward I.
The purpose of this legislation is to place the crown in right of Canada- in petition of right proceedings in the exchequer court in substantially the same position as an ordinary



Petition of Right Act
litigant. This will be accomplished by removing the necessity of obtaining a fiat before a petition of right can be proceeded with. If this bill be passed, as I am sure it will be, it will be possible for a citizen under the Petition of Right Act to institute proceedings against the crown in the exchequer court without the crown's consent given by fiat, just as individuals now conduct litigation against one another in that court.
In order to make the new right of the citizen more effective, the bill also provides in other respects for simplification of procedure in the exchequer court. The result of the bill will be to provide a citizen with a simple, direct, and as far as possible economical method of proceeding as of right against the crown. Since the bill marks a new phase in our legal and constitutional development, it seems appropriate for me to describe briefly its historical background. Its historical setting can be traced, as I have already indicated, to the time of Edward I in the thirteenth century, although its origin undoubtedly extends to even more ancient times. Both the legal theory and the rule of procedure adopted in consequence of that theory are now being discarded by this bill.
In their historical origin our courts were the king's courts. They were created by the king to hear and determine suits brought between subject and subject in accordance with rules of the common law. Since the courts had been created by the king and, in a very real sense, represented the monarchy in the exercise of its judicial function, it was not possible for a subject to sue the king in his own courts. However, even in those early medieval times subjects occasionally had legal claims against the crown and, since they could not sue the king in his own courts, subjects could only hope to get redress by petitioning the king for justice. Thus from very early times these petitions addressed to the king for the redress of wrongs committed by his officers have been known, as they are known in Canada now, as petitions of right, a petition to the king that right should be done.
When the king received these petitions of right it became his practice not to decide for himself, because he had set up courts for the purpose of considering matters of that sort, whether any such petition should be granted. But the king, in relation to these petitions of right, issued an order or fiat addressed to his own courts directing in effect: Let justice be done. In this way issues between the crown and subjects were brought before the courts and there determined in accordance with the law. That is the sole basis in 1951

on which petitions of right against His Majesty in the right of Canada are decided in this country.
It is this old doctrine of constitutional and public law which the government is now asking parliament to abrogate. From this point on, with the passage of this measure, the crown in proceedings in the exchequer court will be in substantially the same position as a subject. It will no longer be necessary for a subject with a claim against the crown to ask for a fiat from the crown before his case can be heard. While the taking of this step marks the formal end of an ancient legal rule, this legal change in a way is a recognition of what is already in substance an accomplished fact. It hardly needs to be said that the crown and the executive arm of government are today in no sense comparable to what they were in the thirteenth century under Edward I. The progress of our constitutional history from the day when the theory of the divine right of kings prevailed, as marked by the growth of parliament and the development of responsible government, brought us to the position today where power is vested in parliament and the people. This same development has made the crown and the executive truly responsible to parliament and the people. From time to time statutes were enacted in Great Britain to assimilate the procedure by petition of right to the ordinary procedure in the courts. That was a development in our courts parallel to the development which was taking place in parliament and in our constitution.
Soon after confederation this parliament enacted legislation designed to facilitate the trial of matters between the crown and the subject.
The first Petition of Right Act was enacted in 1876 and established the basic principle that the procedure in cases between the crown and the subject should be assimilated to that of ordinary litigation; that is to say that apart from this necessity of getting a fiat, once the fiat was obtained and the case before the courts, from that point on the proceedings were pretty much as in ordinary litigation.
In 1887 parliament created the exchequer court as the appropriate forum for the hearing of matters within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament including matters between His Majesty in the right of Canada on the one hand and any subject on the other. Since that time, as is well known, both these statutes have been amended from time to time, always with the purpose of enlarging the substantive right of the subject and of facilitating and simplifying the prosecution of his claims against the crown.

All through the piece, however, it has been necessary for the subject to secure his flat before commencing his action. He has never been able to commence his action as a matter of right; and he still requires the permission of the crown to institute proceedings in the exchequer court. In earlier years the dominion did occasionally refuse to grant a fiat, but in later years such instances have become increasingly rare. For many years past it has been the invariable practice to grant a fiat; hence the subject really has not been obstructed from asserting his right by any technical advantage arising out of this ancient legal precedent. Indeed, it was found that the procedure of first requiring a fiat-and I mentioned this when the same subject matter was under debate on a previous occasion-was not without its practical advantages. While the request for the fiat was being considered it was often possible for a clearer view to be taken of the respective rights of the crown and the subject. As a result settlements were made in some cases, and unsubstantial claims were often dropped, which might not have been the case if steps had been taken automatically as will be possible from this point on. While we are now abolishing the fiat, in practice, as I have contended before and still maintain, as long as these fiats were granted almost automatically the necessity of obtaining them did not appear to work a practical hardship, and the delay occasioned by the necessity of obtaining a fiat quite often served a useful purpose.
However, in recent years the expanding role of government has given more prominence to the position of the crown as a litigant in court proceedings. As the role of government has grown its activities have impinged much more frequently upon the citizens at large, and as a result there has been some increase in the volume of litigation between the crown and the subject. The government has given careful study and consideration for some considerable time to the position as it now stands. As I have indicated, there have been several changes in the Petition of Right Act and the Exchequer Court Act, each having the effect of enlarging the right of the subject and making it easier for him to pursue it. As hon. members will recall, last session parliament adopted a special measure in respect of certain operations of a business or quasi-business nature carried on by virtually all the crown corporations of this government. That was the Statute iLaw Amendment Act, 1950. This statute placed a large number of crown corporations and agencies in the position of being amenable to the jurisdiction of Canadian courts in
Petition of Right Act
much the same way as ordinary corporations. These statutory corporations, created for the exercise of limited functions, are agents of the crown, it is true; but their activities are now governed to a large extent by the rules and laws applicable to ordinary persons and companies in the country. The legislation enacted last year, one admits at once, was directed to a more specialized problem than that raised in the present bill; but it does indicate the concern this government feels for the position of the individual citizen in this modern world, when he is confronted with the operation of government agencies in many places and in connection with his own business.
In these changes I have referred to and in the one now recommended we have had to keep in mind two important balancing factors. On the one hand -there is the obvious consideration that the citizen, as a litigant, should have an economical and effective method of pursuing his claims against the crown. I suggest, however, that this must be balanced by an equally important consideration, namely that in the interests of the general body of the citizens as taxpayers this litigation against the crown should be carried on as economically and efficiently as possible. These two balancing considerations should be taken into account not only in the substantive rights of subjects in proceedings against the crown but also in respect of the procedure to be adopted in providing remedies for those substantive rights; and it is in line with this development that the government now feels it is proper to recommend to parliament that the ancient rule of requiring a fiat before the crown itself can be sued ought to be completely abolished.
The step which is being taken in this bill follows logically from the development of our whole legal history and in particular from the successive measures that have been enacted by -this parliament since confederation. For some considerable period of time our citizens have been able to proceed against the crown as a matter of course because fiats were in no case refused. The enactment of this legislation will enable them to do so as a matter of right. This bill, therefore, represents a real milestone in the development of our law and our constitution. It represents a clear recognition of the realities of our modern life; and its enactment will not only make it easier for a citizen to pursue his claim against the crown but will give all people absolute assurance that in the conduct of its operations the government is not sheltering behind a refusal to grant a necessary fiat.

Petition of Right Act Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister and the government on the change of heart that has taken place with respect to the subject of this bill. It is not long ago that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) pointed out in this house that there was really no need for the removal of this bar to the right of the subject to equality in the courts. My memory recalls when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated that as far as he was concerned he would not agree to the introduction in this house of any measure that would remove the necessity of the subject petitioning for the issue of a flat whose formula reads "let justice be done". I congratulate the government on having gone as far as it has, though my optimism does not equal that of the minister when he claims that the subject in the king's courts is now on terms of equality with the king.
Before dealing in general with this bill I would say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that I have some doubts as to whether his manner of introducing this bill will give legality to the bill when it becomes law. As the minister has stated, since the days of Edward I the king has been in the position of superiority in so far as his relations with his subjects are concerned. One of the few prerogative rights remaining to His Majesty the King is his right not to be sued in the king's courts excepting with his leave and fiat. I feel the minister should give consideration to acquainting the house with the fact that His Excellency the Governor General has consented to this bill being introduced, for without that consent I doubt whether this bill can lawfully be passed by parliament.
Mr. Speaker, in the introduction of money resolutions there is a formula that is always used'. A member of the king's cabinet invariably announces that the governor general has been made aware of the contents of this resolution, and recommends it to the consideration of the house. In the bill providing for the removal of the need of a petition of right, unless the governor general has been apprised of this bill and has consented to it, His Majesty and his representative are without consent, being divested of a prerogative that cannot be removed without that consent. By way of illustration I should like to indicate for the information of the Minister of Justice the manner in which similar legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom. On March 4, 1947, the crown proceedings bill was introduced by Viscount Jowitt, the lord chancellor, who used these words:
In moving the second reading of the bill, I have it in command to acquaint the house that His Majesty the King, having been informed of the contents of

the Crown Proceedings bill, is prepared to place the interests of the crown at the disposal of parliament in, connection with the bill.
I waited, and I waited patiently, for the minister to make a similar statement, for I doubt whether the prerogative of His Majesty the King, of not being sued except by his consent, can be taken away by the House of Commons and the other place without the consent of the governor general as the representative of the king.
When the same bill came before the House of Commons, even though in the House of Lords the formula had been used by the lord chancellor, the attorney general, Sir Hartley Shawcross, in moving the second reading himself realized the need of the king consenting to the removal of one of his prerogatives which goes back to medieval days. He used these words:
I have it in command from the king to acquaint the house that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Crown Proceedings bill, is prepared to place the interests of the crown at the disposal of parliament in connection with the bill.
In my opinion the Minister of Justice will have to give consideration to a similar formula being used in this house, and also to the need of acquainting the governor general with the fact that the House of Commons is desirous of removing one of the prerogative powers of His Majesty the King, After all, the right not to be sued is one of the great remaining prerogatives of the king, and it goes back to the days of Edward I. The king's courts were and have continued to be available to the subjects of the king in litigation as between the subjects of the king, but denied to the subjects of the king against him because "the king can do no wrong." There should be no failure to carry out every fundamental constitutional requirement, for by this legislation parliament will take from the king a power and prerogative that antedates our own constitutional development and carries us back in the British tradition to the year 1347.
I agree with the minister when he says that this is an important constitutional change but with the qualification that it does not go as far as it should. It allows the subject in Canada, without the necessity of a fiat, to take proceedings for such matters as have hitherto required a fiat. It does not extend the right of the individual to take proceedings. His rights are covered by the Exchequer Court Act, section 18, wherein the exchequer court is given exclusive original jurisdiction in the cases set forth. Under this legislation the subject will not have the same rights against the crown that he has against the subject. He will not have the right to take

actions in tort, ini other words, civil wrongs that give rise to causes of action, except as to those torts comprised within the present provisions of the Exchequer Court Act.
In the United Kingdom when they came to wipe away this archaic survival of the doctrine of the supremacy of the king and his position above the law, the legislation granted to the subject the right to take proceedings in tort, such as for slander, for libel, malicious prosecution and for actions arising out of excessive jurisdiction on the part of courts martial convened in the name of the king. The individual, under United Kingdom act of 1947, has equal rights of action against the servants of the king for all wrongs as he would have if committed by another subject.
It is interesting to read the debate in the House of Lords. Under the act passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom the right to take proceedings in. tort was granted to every subject with a few exceptions. The Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) is in his seat and will be interested to know that the post office was specifically excepted from action for any wrongdoing in the transmission of messages. It became necessary too to except the army, navy and air force from certain types of action. For instance, as stated by Lord Jowitt, an exception was incorporated in the bill, that no action could be taken for negligence by a non-commissioned officer or soldier against a superior officer; otherwise one could conceive of an action being taken against Lord Raglan by a soldier for injuries received in the Battle of Balaklava. In the course of his remarks the lord chancellor said:
To give a simple illustration, let me take the charge of the Light Brigade. Could a trooper who took part in that charge, whose leg was shattered by a cannon-ball, have brought an action against Lord Raglan (I think it was), to recover damages on the ground that Lord Raglan had blundered?
He concluded action might be taken if not specifically denied.
After he had finished his speech Lord Raglan, a descendant of the general who gave the order at Balaklava, rose and said this:
The noble and learned viscount having referred to my great-grandfather by name, I would just like to say that his responsibility for the charge of the Light Brigade is not regarded by historians as by any means so certain as the noble and learned viscount suggested.
There was living history and tradition. The right of the subject to take action against the crown will be assured without the necessity of the issue of a fiat only so far as the restricted jurisdiction of the exchequer court
Petition of Right Act
now provides when this bill is passed but his right to sue in tort will not be widened. It will still be restricted to proceedings against the crown as provided for under the Exchequer Court Act. Having regard to the extension of government into business, referred to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and the many ramifications that arise by reason of the variety of relationships between emanations of the crown and the individual, I suggest that the time has come to extend to the individual in this country equality in the matter of rights of action in every respect as provided for under the act in force in the United Kingdom. Otherwise all parliament will have done is to remove what the Minister of Justice states is a mere formality, claiming as he does that seldom if at all has the crown in recent years, in the right of the Attorney General of Canada, refused any subject his right to take proceedings in the courts of law. Our constitution is constantly being changed to meet changing conditions; and this bill makes for a constitutional change to meet changing conditions.
The chief justice of Canada, the distinguished father of the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret), in a case in the supreme court provided a definition of the constitution in words that I am going to use at this moment:
The constitution of Canada does not belong either to parliament, or to the legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled.
This constitutional change will add to the rights of Canadians.
Were one on this occasion to be inclined to self-adulation, one might point out that member after member on this side of the house has been asking for several years for the removal of this clog upon the right of the individual to take proceedings. Among them were the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the hon. member for Eglinton. (Mr. Fleming), and the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith); and personally, I raised the matter over ten years ago. It was suggested too that when legislation was introduced to remove this archaic survival of ancient days in our constitution, the rights of the individual should be extended beyond those that now exist, and that the subject should be placed in equality with regard to the king as he is in actions that can be taken against fellow citizens. In modern days the principle of requiring a fiat has become indefensible. The king was and is the fountain of justice, yet when an action is to be taken, justice could be refused fay the custodian of the king's conscience. That

Petition of Right Act requirement has now been removed and that is a step forward. For that step I congratulate the Minister of Justice. But at the same time I suggest that having gone so far along the road in extending to the subject equality with the king, one thing more remains to be done, namely to extend the rights of the individual so that there will, in fact, be in the king's court equality of the individual with the king and his representatives.
My hon. and learned friend also avers that procedure has been simplified and that one of the aims of this legislation is to assure economy to the subject seeking the king's justice and also at the same time to assure economy in so far as the taxpayer is concerned. With those two objectives I agree; but I submit that in order to secure economy and in order to extend the ambit of the field of justice to individuals in our country, wherever they may live, another step should be taken, namely to abolish the exclusive jurisdiction now possessed by the exchequer court and the giving to the subject of the alternative right to proceed against the crown in the ordinary courts of the land.
Furthermore in simplifying procedure, rules should be made-and I think they would have to be passed by parliament-to enable discovery of documents as against the crown. The individual in an action against the crown has the right to ask for the discovery of documents; but His Majesty's ministers have the right to say that it is not in the public interest to produce the documents asked for. I feel that the right of the minister to exercise that authority in the public interest should be circumscribed to a certain extent. Certainly the safety of the state and the public interest are of foremost consideration. But the minister, representing one of the crown corporations of our country, in actions against the crown corporation, should not be allowed to raise as an answer to the request for the production of documents that it is not in the public interest to produce those documents, without having those documents produced to the judge trying the case so that he himself may conclude whether there is foundation for the claim or reservation made by the minister.
I can think of two or three cases against the wheat board, and other emanations of the crown, wherein the stand has been taken that it is not in the public interest to produce documents. That excuse might be used as a means whereby documents are not to be produced, because of the fact that the interests of the government might sometimes be regarded by ministers as the interest of


the state. I feel some measure in that regard should be brought into being in order to simplify the procedure.
There have been two cases in connection with the discovery of documents as against the crown, neither of which I have looked up for the present debate, but I recollect the events and ciroumstances connected with them. In one case from Australia there was an appeal in connection with the refusal on the part of the minister to produce documents of a crown corporation, on the ground that it was not in the public interest. The privy council held that when a minister avowed it was not in the public interest, that was the end. On the other hand during the days of the war, the First Lord of the Admiralty refused to produce certain documents on the ground that it was not in the public interest to produce them. The House of Lords held that the documents had to be produced to the trial judge who, after perusal, would conclude whether or not there was a sound basis for the refusal on the part of the king's minister to produce a document.
I am not going into anything controversial on this occasion, but it is conceivable that a refusal to produce documents by a crown corporation could result in a denial of justice within the king's courts. The decision that the public interest would deny the production of a document should rest with the judiciary.
The minister very properly stated that business and government, or government in business, is expanding at a very great rate -and that is true. The rights of the subject are being diminished as the powers of the executive are being increased. We find year after year that the executive has been entrenching upon the rights of the individual and, in statutes and also by orders in council, has been denying the right of the individual to question in the courts of law any act performed by a minister of the crown under a statute or order in council, or by anyone acting through or under him.
Sir, if our democracy is to mean freedom of the individual, then no citizen should be denied the right of appeal to the courts when, in the opinion of that citizen, an injustice has been done. In introducing this measure the minister has granted a right to the individual which, as he has said, was almost ephemeral in so far as its material existence was concerned. He would perpetuate his name as a great minister of justice were he to insist that no statute or order in council, wherein the right of an individual to appeal to the courts is denied, would longer be countenanced by him or the government.

I think of several orders in council which provide that no individual citizen in this country could lodge any proceedings against the crown for wrongdoings. The opposition took a strong stand in that behalf when the Foreign Exchange Control Act came before the house and a section was inserted in the act which provided that where there was wrongdoing on the part of the officials of the crown under that act a citizen could take proceedings, but would be restricted to nominal damages, and no costs.
I suggest to the minister that, having regard to his desire as expressed tonight to assure to the individual equality before the law, he should take the bureaucrats off the pedestals they sit upon, immune from responsibility to the courts, and place them in a position where citizens whose rights have been interfered with illegally shall have recourse to the courts when injustice has been done to them. That would be a step along the road toward raising the status of the citizen. To use the minister's expression, that would, be a milestone in the achievement of the rights of the individual.
While parliament sits, orders in council are still being issued placing ministers of the crown in a position of absolute power. The king's courts are being denied to those whose rights are interfered with. I have in my hand an order in council dated May 16, 1951, dealing with priority regulations, the purpose of which is a good one. It grants to the minister the power requiring any person who produces or deals in or has in his possession any essential supplies to deal with them, as directed and to furnish information as directed.
Those powers may be necessary, although I cannot justify the right of a minister to place a minister or a bureaucrat above the law. The order in council contains the following term:
Where any person fails to fulfil any contract or obligation whether made or assumed before or after the effective date of these regulations, and such failure is due to compliance on the part of such person with any order made under the authority of these regulations after such contract or obligation was made or assumed, proof of that fact shall be a good defence to any action or proceeding against such person in respect of such failure.
While parliament is sitting a minister of the crown by order in council is granted the power to decide that where a breach of contract takes place, where the rule of law has been abrogated the fact that a breach of contract resulted from his orders shall be a defence in the courts of law. In my opinion power such as that above the courts should
Petition of Right Act
not be entrusted to a mere human being, no matter how high his position in the ministry of the country may be.
Under this bill the rights to sue the crown without leave in the courts of the land will be granted to the individual, and the fiction that the king can do no wrong, which goes back, as the minister has said, to the days when the king was absolute, when justice was an emanation of the crown, will be terminated. Parliament should go further and remove the unjustifiable abrogation of the right of the individual which places a minister of the crown or anyone acting on behalf of the minister above the king's courts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Filing of petition.
John George Diefenbaker: What consideration was
given by the minister or by the law officers of the crown to acquainting the governor general with the fact that the House of Commons intended to abrogate an ancient prerogative, one of the few still possessed by the king? And, second, was the governor general made acquainted with the contents of this bill and did he indicate he was prepared to place the interests of the crown at the disposal of parliament?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has raised
what perhaps may be an important point. I have not given consideration to it. I assume that if there is anything to the point raised by my hon. friend, it has been fully considered by the law officers of the crown and that the assent to which my hon. friend refers may have been considered to be appropriately given when, as my hon. friend knows, the representative of the king assents to the bill before it finally becomes law.
However, as my hon. friend has raised this point I shall certainly make it my business to confer specifically with the law officers of the crown concerning it. If it is necessary that assent should be obtained in a preliminary way, as he has indicated on the basis of the precedent which he brought to the attention of the house, then that assent will be obtained and announced on the third reading. In that way we will clear the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend says he
takes it for granted that, when the crown gives assent to the bill and it becomes law, that will be assent on the part of the crown. I point out to him that in connection with money bills the final offering of the governor general's signature does not legalize the expenditure or the taxation unless the governor general has been made acquainted with

Petition of Right Act
the purposes for which the resolution was introduced in parliament and has given his approval.
As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, in the House of Lords and the House of Commons the- attorney general, Sir Hartley Shawcross, and the lord chancellor, Viscount Jowitt, both made it clear before they moved second reading that His Majesty had consented to having removed from his power a prerogative power, namely, the right not to be sued in the king's courts of law except with his consent.
I feel that further consideration should be given to this matter. I doubt whether the use of the formula on third reading suggested by the Minister of Justice would be sufficient, for it would be impossible to ratify what had been done earlier by consent acquired after parliament had in fact passed the bill through the House of Commons and the other place. The minister might get some help from the fact that a similar question in connection with the queen's prerogative took place during the reign of Elizabeth.
We may say that all of these things are traditional; we may say that the introduction by a minister of the crown of a money bill is traditional; but we must never lose sight of the fact that parliament is composed of the crown, the Senate and the House of Commons. I have brought up this matter so there will be no possibility of the question being raised in the future that parliament acted hastily without securing the consent of the king's representative to remove from his person one of his ancient and remaining prerogative powers.


Major James William Coldwell: Is not the formula followed in the house by a minister when introducing a resolution fiction rather than fact?


John George Diefenbaker: It would be illegal if
it were not pronounced.


Major James William Coldwell: Is it not fiction rather than fact? Is it not the fact that under our parliamentary system and our system of budgeting, of necessity the government or the cabinet alone must approve of the recommendation to the House of Commons of expenditure of money in order to keep the budget intact? Consequently that fiction is used. I well remember the late prime minister explaining on one occasion how this fiction worked. I am not going to give the explanation he gave because it was perfectly clear to me thereafter that it was not a fact but rather was a fiction. The right to sue the crown has been established in various parts of the British dominions without consulting His Majesty or his representative, and without any disrespect to either His [Mr. Diefenbaker.!
Majesty or His Majesty's representative. I know that in Saskatchewan, for example, where they set up certain crown companies, the right to sue was included in the statutes.


John George Diefenbaker: We have that in many
of ours.


Major James William Coldwell: And in many of ours. That is true. Consequently it seems to me that, while the point is an interesting one and one that perhaps is worth bringing before the house and placing before the government for consideration, it should not carry any weight against the passage of this bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Why would the lord chancellor and the attorney general see His Majesty?


Major James William Coldwell: Why would the lord chancellor and the attorney general see His Majesty regarding this? I think that in Great Britain, close as they are to His Majesty the King, they rather like to preserve these niceties to a greater extent than we are apt to do in the overseas countries where we have not the king but the king's representative. After all, under our constitutional practice the king can do no wrong because of course he does what parliament decides shall be done. It is no longer possible for the king or indeed the king's representative, except in theory, to veto something that the lords and commons have done together, or that the House of Commons and the Senate have done. We have had two or three examples of this in our history.
I remember reading the story of the passage of the legislation doing away with the purchase of commissions in the British army, I think it was. When Gladstone took the bill to Her Majesty Queen Victoria the queen, who disliked the bill very much, said when she got down to it in the pile: "I am not going to sign that bill." As I remember the story, it runs something like this. Mr. Gladstone said very respectfully:	"But Your
Majesty must sign that bill." The queen said very indignantly: "How dare you say 'must' to me? I am the Queen of England." Mr. Gladstone said:	"Yes, Your Majesty,
and I represent the people of England." The queen signed the bill.
Then there was the passage of the British parliament act in 1911, I believe, as to which there was some objection on the part of the crown, but the crown gave way when the prime minister indicated very clearly that it was the will of the elected representatives of the people, and there was also withdrawal of opposition on the part of many of the lords

on perhaps another consideration. I think the time has come when we all realize that in reality His Majesty is the symbol of authority rather than the ruler. While we respect that symbol, we none the less regard ourselves as supreme in our own right as representing the people in democratic legislatures. I must confess that, while I think the point is a very interesting one, I do not think it has any bearing on why we should or should not pass this particular measure.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The point now before the
committee has to do with whether or not it will be sufficient to signify this approval on third reading. Addressing myself to that one point, I would refer the committee to Sir T. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, fourteenth edition, page 784, where it says:
In the case of bills which have been mentioned in the speech from the throne, no communication is required in respect of the king's interests until the third reading. But the fact that a bill affecting the interests of the crown-*
I understand that is my hon. friend's argument.
-has been mentioned in the speech from the throne does not exempt it from the need of such a communication.
That is, at third reading. In- case my hon. friends do not recall it, in the speech from the throne toward the end the following statement appears:
You will be asked to consider measures respecting federal grants to municipalities in lieu of taxation of crown property, the abolition of the requirement of the flat in the case of petitions of right, and the bequests of Laurier House and Kingsmere.
Therefore I think there is no question but
what, since this matter has been referred to in the speech from the throne, the indicating of the king's approval, if that be necessary in the present instance-and I wish to confer with the law officers as to whether that be the case-will be available at quite an appropriate time if it is brought down on that occasion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should
like to ask a question of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I was a little surprised at the rather casual manner in which he wiped out the formalities as doctrinaire, and I think he also used the word "fiction". I should like to ask him this question. In the instance he gave of Gladstone and Queen Victoria he does not refer to Gladstone as saying: It does not matter whether you sign or not. Gladstone said, "You must sigtn," In other words, it was a very essential part of the effectiveness of the law. When we pass measures in this house, as I understand, we resort to the Senate and the 80709-222
Petition of Right Act
governor general or his representative is there and he approves of the legislation. Then and not till then does it become effective.
If that is so, why does the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar treat, as I understood him to do, as a sort of trivial formality, something we could dispense with if we liked, the preceding consent of the governor general before the bill in proper cases is introduced into this house? As I understood the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, he thought that was something we did just because it was a pretty thing to do, but that it was not essential. Where does essentiality begin and end? I find it very puzzling to know just how many of these things, if any, you have to regard merely as pleasant relics of antiquity, and how many you have to regard as essential. I was very interested in what the hon. member for Lake Centre said tonight on the point of this measure being produced here without apparently being referred to His Excellency. I note that the Minister of Justice proposes to take that point seriously and to deal with it. I am glad of that.
As a matter of fact, the very first day I ever sat in this house I think I remember ' the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar commenting with great approval on the ancient ceremonies that we follow. I have heard other members say that when they first came here they thought they were rather trivial and unnecessary, but that they had entirely changed their minds. I suppose that is partly because we feel our roots are in the past and that ancient observances have a great importance in that way. I come back again to my question. I should like to know the distinction which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar makes.


Major James William Coldwell: Petition of Right Act
apprised of its contents before it was introduced into this house, since it does not involve the expenditure of money. So I would leave it to hon. members who are members of the privy council to tell the hon. member for Greenwood how frequently the interesting formula recited to the house before the introduction of a money bill is actually a statement of fact rather than an interesting fiction.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it possible that it is a statement of fact and no consultation takes place? I do not think so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is with some hesitation that I express an opinion here. I was extremely interested in the quotation read by the Minister of Justice to the effect, as I think he said, that the situation would be cured by making the pronouncement on third reading. I wonder if I might suggest that the quotation does not quite take care of the situation in which we find ourselves here. Surely the situation is that while all the members of the cabinet are members of the House of Commons, they are the king's ministers. As I understand, all legislation is laid before the house in the name of His Majesty: "His Majesty by and with the consent of the house enacts as follows". Ministers who lay legislation before us do so in their capacity as king's ministers. If this bill seeks, as it does, to take away from His Majesty one of his remaining prerogatives, and on the authority of May His Majesty's consent must be obtained before that can be done, how then can his ministers ask this house to give its consent to this legislation unless they are in a position to say "We have it in command to inform the house that His Majesty consents"? They have asked us to give approval in principle on second reading. That approval we have given, though the point was raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre. We are now aisked to pass the bill through the committee stage and give it third reading. The house does not know because the minister has not told us-and from what has transpired I think I would be safe in saying the minister cannot tell us-that His Majesty's representative the governor general is satisfied that this prerogative should be removed.
So if the point has substance, as I think it has, I doubt whether merely making the statement on third reading will validate the proceedings. I take the liberty of expressing doubt whether it is proper for the House of Commons to proceed with this legislation which removes one of His Majesty's prerogatives until we have been- told whether or not
[Mr. Coldwell.l
His Majesty's representative consents. I do not take the position the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar takes with respect to these formalities or relics or whatever you may call them. They may be legal fictions to a certain extent, but it is quite often the case that
(having due regard to a legal fiction is vital if the result is to have any validity. The fact is that the ministers are here as His Majesty's ministers. If you wish to call it a fiction that they are responsible to the king's representative I would not be prepared to enter into any extensive argument on that point. Admittedly they are members of this house and are responsible to it, but it is a fact, whether you call it a fiction or not, that under our system all authority stems from the -crown. So it seems to me that obtaining the consent of the crown to the removal of this prerogative is not a formality or the mere observance of a fiction, but is something which if ignored might invalidate the whole of the proceedings the government is trying to put through.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I am not mistaken the hon. member for Kamloops accompanied other members and myself to the other place when the king's speech was read at the beginning of the present session. In that speech His Majesty's representative indicated that this legislation to do away with the fiat would be placed before hon. members. That is a circumstance I think my hon. friend completely left out of account in the argument he just made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That signification of the king's view in the matter is not without -significance; and the quotation from Sir Erskine May which I read a few minutes a-g-o applies precisely to that state of affairs, where in the speech from the throne there is an indication of legislation. While that reference does not obviate the necessity for a signification of his assent, it does make it proper that the assent should be given on third reading of the bill; and that is the only question involved here. If hon. members are interested I could read a citation from Bourinot to the same effect.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to labour the point, but in regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar as to the prerogative powers of the king I refer to page 2 of May:
The crown of these realms is hereditary, being subject, however, to special limitations by parliament; and- the king or queen has ever enjoyed, by

prescription, custom and law the chief pk parliament and the sole executive power, right of succession-
I stress the next words particularly.
-and the prerogatives of the crown itself are, however, subject to limitations and change by legislative process with the consent and authority of the sovereign.
The references under that section are to the changes that have taken place in the king's title in recent years. I think the minister will find that in all those cases the representative of the king in the House of Lords and the attorney general, holding the position the Minister of Justice holds in our country, have recognized the prerogatives of the king not as fictions but as actual, existing evidences of the executive power of the king. I raised the point so that no question could be raised in the courts some day as to whether or not parliament had acted properly. Certainly the lord high chancellor of England, Lord Jowitt, one of the greatest authorities oF~our day on constitutional law, and Sir Hartley Shawcross, the attorney general of Britain and one of the greatest lawyers of this generation, did not for amusement only, before introducing the bill in question, point out that the king had specifically agreed to a release of his prerogative rights. If there was no purpose in that, neither of these outstanding representatives in the administration of British justice would have found it necessary to use words that had no purpose but were merely superfluous.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think possibly I might shed a little light on the analogy drawn by the hon. member for Lake Centre between the Governor General's recommendation of a money bill, and the assent which he is pres-enfly^discussing. I am quoting from Bourinot, page 413, where it says:
A misapprehension has sometimes arisen as to the time when the "consent" of the crown should be given to a bill. The procedure with respect to signifying the consent is different from that in giving the recommendation of the crown. The recommendation precedes every grant of money: "the consent may be given at any stage before final passage, and is always necessary in matters involving the rights of the crown, its patronage, its property, or its prerogatives.	.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a question on the content of the bill. The member for Lake Centre referred to a situation in England where, when they opened very wide the right of the subject to take proceedings against the crown, they made specific reservations of one or two matters of public administration. There was a specific reservation in the case of the post office, and another one in the case 80709-222i
Petition of Right Act
in of the armed forces. It occurs to me, particularly in view of the amendment to the Exchequer Court Act which was passed in 1938, and which had the effect of removing the limitation on the right of the subject to bring actions against the crown for negligence of a public servant. Formerly the limitation was that the negligence must have been in connection with a public work, but now it is the negligence of a servant in the course of his duties.
Although I do wish to see the right of action extended so far as is feasible and practicable, I believe it would be undesirable to go too far. Will the minister say what consideration was given to this question, now that the necessity for a fiat is taken away, and whether it does not open up the possibility of actions of a sort against the military forces of the country which it would not be desirable to establish.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member realizes, of course, that the actions to which he refers are those contemplated by the Exchequer Court Act. Section 19 (c) which reads:
Every claim against the crown arising out of any death or injury to the person or to property resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment . . .
I rather think that those cases about which the hon. member is apprehensive are not cases in which it would be possible to establish negligence. I think that is the test. For example, there have been cases, in respect of military acts, in which it has been impossible to prove negligence, so the plaintiff has not succeeded. On the other hand, there are provisions under manoeuvre regulations, aviation crash regulations, and gunfire regulation, where consideration is given on an organized basis of compensatory payments ex gratia, even although in a particular case negligence cannot be proven, that is that the damage in question is not caused by the negligence of any person. For example, if you have a loss arising out of concussion from gunfire, in certain circumstances compensation can be made on an ex gratia basis without any negligence being involved.
" I believe the hon, member's apprehension as to any unlimited liability of the crown leaves out of account the fact that in these cases the plaintiff has to prove negligence. That is not always an easy matter to prove, even where it may exist. While I am on that subject, I believe that, in fairness to our own legislation, I should point out that the hon. member for Lake Centre rather tended to leave the impression that the scope of our

Petition of Right Act
act was quite narrow. I believe I should point out what it does cover.


John George Diefenbaker: Narrower than the British act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, it is narrower than the British act. Yet I believe it would be wise to put on the record what it does cover. Even in relation to the British act it is quite wide. First of all, it says:
The Exchequer Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in which the land, goods or money of the subject are in the possession of the crown, or in which the claim arises out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the crown.
Those are two cases.
Every claim against the crown for property taken for any public purpose.
That makes three.
Every claim against the crown for damage to property injuriously affected by the construction of any public work.
That makes four.
Every claim against the crown arising out of any death or injury to the person or to property resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment.
That makes five.
Every claim against the crown arising under any law of Canada or any regulation made by the governor in council.
That makes six.
Every claim against the crown arising out of any death or injury or loss to the person or to property caused by the negligence of any officer or servant of the crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment upon, in or about the construction, maintenance or operation of the Intercolonial railway or the Prince Edward Island railway.
That makes seven. There is a similar provision for the Canadian National Railways and all its subsidiaries, as a crown corporation.
The amount to be paid whenever the crown and any person have agreed in writing that the crown or such person shall pay an amount of money to be determined by the exchequer court . . .
That is on a reference to the court. -That makes eight.
The exchequer court has jurisdiction in cases of conflicting application for any patent of invention, or for the registration of any copyright, trade-mark or industrial design. That makes nine.
. . in all cases in which it is sought to impeach or annul any patent of invention, or to have any entry in any register or copyrights, trade-marks or industrial designs made, expunged, varied or rectified.
That makes ten.
. . . in all cases in which a remedy is sought respecting the infringement of any patent of invention, copyright . . .

And so on. That is eleven. Then No. 12 is where an application to the patent office for a patent has been refused, the subject has an appeal to the exchequer court, from the decision of the commissioner of patents. That is twelve.
Again, in fairness to our legislation, it should be pointed out that the hon. member for Lake Centre has already referred to the fact that under the British legislation they provide that the crown shall be subject to all these liabilities in tort as if it were a private person of full age and capacity. But these liabilities are in respect of torts committed by the servants or agents of the crown and not by the crown per se.


John George Diefenbaker: The crown could not commit a tort.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will grant that the torts that are committed by the crown, in the nature of things, are usually only committed by its servants or agents. But I also say it leaves quite a wrong impression to indicate or to imply that when we in Canada have taken care of the tort of negligence we have not taken care of by far the greater number of torts that the crown through its servants or agents can commit. I do suggest that with respect to such other torts as trespass, assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, libel and slander, deceit, trover and conversion, and slander of title, it is not likely the average servant of the crown, in the course of his duties, would ever 'commit these torts. Therefore it does not leave an entirely correct impression to say that the British act is of much wider scope than our own; because in taking care of the tort of negligence, which accounts for the vast majority of the claims that are made against the crown, we are taking care of the great bulk of the foundations of legal liability against the crown.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the argument of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) with respect to the difficulty of proving negligence in those cases to which I referred arising particularly within the armed forces. I agree that that would be exceedingly difficult on occasion. But I should imagine that there are other cases where it would not be impossible by any means to establish negligence.
They might be cases of a type where, in the general interest of the forces themselves, it should not be contemplated that a member of the forces can bring an action against the crown for the legal negligence of another member of the forces. For instance, I have in mind the type of thing arising out of

accidents in preparation for actual war, in time of actual war or time of apprehended war when safety precautions are to an extent relaxed, and when what are in military eyes practically inevitable accidents occur, but in terms of legal liability it may well be possible to establish that there was negligence on somebody's part.
It is an exceedingly difficult matter and one involving public policy but I suggest, with respect, that the minister's answer that there are cases where it is almost impossible to establish negligence, nevertheless does not dispose of the whole field. I suggest to him seriously that it might be desirable, in order to deal with those particular cases, to consider whether some particular amendment-I think probably to the Exchequer Court Act-should not be introduced. I am reinforced in that view by an article which I saw in the press recently. I meant to bring the clipping down, and I regret that I did not do so. It was an article reporting a recent decision of the exchequer court awarding $30,000 damages to, my recollection is, an airman who was injured while being driven in a jeep by another airman.
The judge of the court who delivered the judgment, according to the report as I recall it, concluded by saying that this may have very important implications, particularly with respect to the payment of pensions in the future, and that it may be something which calls for legislative action. "But", he said, "that is for parliament to decide, not for me. I am interpreting the law as it exists today." I wish I had brought the clipping down with me, because it would be much more satisfactory to read it than to refer to it generally. But it seems to me to indicate that there are possibilities which should be considered.
Having removed, as I say, that former limitation that the negligence of the crown's servant must be upon a public work, it seems to me that now to take away the necessity for a fiat opens up further considerations. In Britain it was felt necessary to provide for a specific provision in their bill, to the effect that members of the armed forces and certain other people in the public service could not sue the crown for negligence of their fellow employees on the same sort of duty. I should like strongly to urge on the minister that further consideration should be given to that matter here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should be glad to give
consideration to my hon. friend's point. But when one takes into account the fact that one must prove negligence, and that one
Petition of Right Act
must prove that that negligence was committed by the servant of the crown within the scope of his duties, it narrows the field considerably. For example, once in a while there are actions brought against the crown in respect of a motor vehicle accident involving servants of the crown using public motor vehicles not in the course of their duty but after hours and the like. That is not negligence in the course of duty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. But may I refer the
minister to an illustration of the difficulty which was given in this case by Viscount Simon in discussing the bill in the House of Lords. He was approving of the fact that there a limitation had been put in the bill making it clearly impossible for one member of the armed forces to sue the crown for the negligence of a fellow member. He said:
To take a simple example, if a government aeroplane crashes-
I think for my purpose I should substitute "if an R.C.A.F. aeroplane crashes."
-and it is found that the crash is due to the negligence of the pilot in landing, no member of the crew can bring any action against the pilot for damages, and, what is more, no action can be brought against the crown.
Then he goes on. It seems to me it is perfectly easy to visualize that sort of action taking place. I do not want to theorize here, but I would imagine that the approach there would be that pensions for loss of life while on service were provided to take care of hazards of the service. That is exactly what the judge of the exchequer court had in mind in the recent case to which I have referred when he said that this matter may have some important bearing in connection with pensions. "But," he said, "if legislative action is necessary, that is for parliament to concern itself with, not for me. I am interpreting the law as it exists."
I do not want to labour the point, but I think it is something that should be looked into further.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Carried. Shall clause 2
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alphonse Fournier: Eleven o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since it is close to eleven
o'clock, Mr. Chairman, will the minister

Business of the House
accommodate us by allowing us to call it eleven o'clock and give this matter consideration overnight?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up third reading of Bill No. 198, to amend the Customs Act. Then we will try to pass this Petition of Right Act, and get it to third reading anyhow. Then we will take
up Bill No. 338, to amend the Quebec
Savings Banks Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) to amend the Veterans Insurance Act; then Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada post office. If we are fortunate enough to pass all those pieces of legislation, we will move to go into supply and call three departments.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 29, 1951